Element Order in Old English and Old High German Translations 9027266239, 9789027266231

Citation preview

NOWELE Supplement Series

Element Order in Old English and Old High German Translations Anna Cichosz, Jerzy Gaszewski and Piotr P˛ezik

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Element Order in Old English and Old High German Translations

NOWELE Supplement Series (NSS) issn 0900-8675 NOWELE Supplement Series is a book series associated with the journal NOWELE: North-Western European Language Evolution. The supplement series is devoted not only to the study of the history and prehistory of a locally determined group of languages, but also to the study of purely theoretical questions concerning historical language development. The series contains publications dealing with all aspects of the (pre-) histories of – and with intra- and extra-linguistic factors contributing to change and variation within – Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Frisian, Dutch, German, English, Gothic and the Early Runic language. The series will publish monographs and edited volumes.

For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/nss

Editor

Co-editor

Hans Frede Nielsen

John Ole Askedal

University of Southern Denmark

University of Oslo

Advisory Editors Michael Barnes

Kurt Gustav Goblirsch

Sara M. Pons-Sanz

Rolf H. Bremmer, Jr.

Erik W. Hansen

Jürg R. Schwyter

Volkert F. Faltings

Alexandra Holsting

Hans Fix

Stephen Laker

University College London Leiden University

Universität Flensburg Universität Greifswald

University of South Carolina University of Southern Denmark

Cardiff University

University of Lausanne

University of Southern Denmark Kyushu University

Volume 28 Element Order in Old English and Old High German Translations by Anna Cichosz, Jerzy Gaszewski and Piotr Pęzik

Element Order in Old English and Old High German Translations Anna Cichosz Jerzy Gaszewski Piotr Pęzik University of ŁÓdź

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

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

doi 10.1075/nss.28 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2016038790 isbn 978 90 272 4074 3 isbn 978 90 272 6623 1

(Hb) (e-book)

© 2016 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Company · https://benjamins.com

Table of contents List of figures List of tables Preface Chapter 1 Studying the element order of Old Germanic languages 1.1 Introduction  3 1.2 Element order  4 1.3 Available sources for Old Germanic languages  8 1.4 Comparing the comparable  11 1.5 Translations: a second choice for a syntactic study  14 Chapter 2 How to study element order in translated texts 2.1 Methodologies of other studies of OE and OHG translations  19 2.2 The ENHIGLA parallel corpus  22 2.3 Texts included in the corpus  24 2.4 Syntactic annotation of clauses and clause elements  29 2.5 The alignment procedure  36 2.6 Classification of element order patterns  37 2.7 Assessing dependence on the Latin source text  41 2.8 Quantifying complex element order patterns  46 2.9 Summary  49 Chapter 3 The V-second phenomenon 3.1 The V-2 phenomenon: overview  51 3.1.1 Introduction  51 3.1.2 The V-2 phenomenon in OE  52 3.1.3 The V-2 phenomenon in OHG  54 3.1.4 Summary: factors influencing the V-2 phenomenon in OE and OHG  56 3.2 Research questions and the structure of the study  56 3.3 Overall results  59

ix x 1 3

19

51

vi

Table of contents

3.4 V-2 phenomenon according to subject type  60 3.4.1 Pronominal subjects  60 3.4.2 Nominal subjects  62 3.5 Clause-initial elements causing S-V inversion  64 3.6 Clause-initial elements not causing S-V inversion  75 3.7 Intervening phrases  83 3.8 Relation to Latin  88 3.9 Summary and conclusions  114 Chapter 4 Verb-initial main declarative clauses 4.1 V-1 declarative clauses: overview  121 4.1.1 The origin of the V-1 order  121 4.1.2 V-1 declaratives in OE  122 4.1.3 V-1 declaratives in OHG  124 4.2 Research questions  126 4.3 Overall results  127 4.4 The influence of verb type and negation  127 4.5 The narrative function of V-1 declaratives  132 4.6 Relation to Latin  137 4.7 Summary and conclusions  147

121

Chapter 5 Element order in subordinate clauses 153 5.1 Subordinate clauses: overview  153 5.1.1 Introduction  153 5.1.2 Subordinate clauses in OE  154 5.1.3 Subordinate clauses in OHG  156 5.1.4 Summary: Factors influencing the order of subordinate clauses in OE and OHG  158 5.2 Approach and study design  158 5.2.1 Classifying element order in subordinate clauses  158 5.2.2 Research questions  163 5.3 General distribution of element orders  164 5.4 Clause type  166 5.5 Types of post-verbal phrases  169 5.6 Weight of phrases  175 5.7 Subtypes of adverbial clauses  184 5.8 Subtypes of nominal clauses  193 5.9 Subtypes of relative clauses  200



Table of contents vii

5.9.1 Free relatives and true relatives  200 5.9.2 Relativisation strategies  205 5.10 Relation to Latin  213 5.11 Summary and conclusions  229 Chapter 6 Element order in conjunct clauses 6.1 Overview of the element order in OE and OHG conjunct clauses  235 6.1.1 Introduction  235 6.1.2 Conjunct clauses in OE  237 6.1.3 Conjunct clauses in OHG  238 6.1.4 Problems of comparison and study design  240 6.2 Research questions  243 6.3 The basic element order in conjunct clauses  243 6.4 Co-referentiality of subjects in OE  253 6.5 Locative phrases in OE  258 6.6 Type of verb in OHG  261 6.7 Relation to Latin  264 6.8 Summary and conclusions  277 Chapter 7 The position of objects 7.1 Introduction: objects in OE and OHG  283 7.1.1 Objects in Old Germanic languages  283 7.1.2 Objects in OE  284 7.1.3 Objects in OHG  286 7.2 Research questions and study design  287 7.3 Position of pronominal objects  288 7.4 Position of nominal objects  297 7.5 Objects in clauses with a complex verb phrase  304 7.6 Relation to Latin  308 7.6.1 Clauses with a simple VP  308 7.6.2 Clauses with a complex VP  327 7.6.3 Summary of Latin influence  334 7.7 Summary and conclusions  336 Chapter 8 Translation strategies 8.1 Introduction  343 8.2 Research questions  346

235

283

343

viii Table of contents

8.3 Syntax of the source texts. Classifying Latin element order patterns.  347 8.4 Overall closeness of the translations  350 8.5 Translating V-1 clauses  352 8.6 Translating V-final clauses  361 8.7 Translating non-finite clauses  366 8.8 Phraseological equivalence  373 8.9 Summary and conclusions  379 Chapter 9 Text-specific and language-specific element order patterns in OE and OHG translations 383 9.1 Introduction  383 9.2 Text-specific and language-specific features of the OE translations  383 9.2.1 The Book of Genesis  383 9.2.2 Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum  386 9.2.3 The Gospel of Luke (West-Saxon Gospels)  390 9.2.4 Common features of the OE translations  392 9.3 Text-specific and language-specific features of the OHG translations  395 9.3.1 Tatian Gospel translation  395 9.3.2 Isidor’s De fide catolica  398 9.3.3 Physiologus  400 9.3.4 Common features of the OHG translations  402 9.4 Comparison of OE and OHG element order  404 9.5 Final conclusions  406 References

411

Index

421

List of figures

Chapter 2: Figure 1.  The Latin source texts are segmented and annotated at the level of phrases and aligned with their OE (and OHG) equivalents at the level of clauses.  23 Figure 2.  A decision tree modelling the choice between OV and VO in Tatian.  47

Chapter 5: Figure 1.  Tendency for the V-final order in all subtypes of adverbials.  192

List of tables Chapter 1 Table 1.  The periodisation of Old Germanic languages and the available sources for their study.  11

Chapter 2 Table 1.  Texts included in the study corpus.  27 Table 2.  OHG element order patterns in Tatian and their associated feature vectors.  46 Table 3.  A confusion matrix for the Tatian decision tree.  48

Chapter 3 Table 1.  The frequency of the V-2 order in non-conjunct main declarative clauses with S.  59 Table 2.  The frequency of V-late declaratives.  59 Table 3.  V-2 and V-late element orders in main declarative clauses with pronominal subjects.  60 Table 4.  Order of elements in V-late clauses with pronominal subjects.  61 Table 5.  Rate of S-V inversion with pronominal subjects.  61 Table 6.  Rate of S-V inversion of various pronoun types.  62 Table 7.  V-2 and V-late element orders in main declaratives with nominal subjects.  62 Table 8.  Order of elements in V-late clauses with nominal subjects.  63 Table 9.  Rate of S-V inversion with nominal subjects.  63 Table 10.  Rate of S-V inversion of pronominal and nominal subjects.  64 Table 11.  Type of clause-initial elements in x-V-S and x-x-V-S pattern in Genesis.  65 Table 12.  Type of clause-initial element in x-V-S pattern in Bede.  66 Table 13.  Types of clause-initial elements in x-V-S pattern in Luke.  68 Table 14.  Type of clause-initial elements in x-V-S pattern in Tatian.  71 Table 15.  Type of clause-initial elements in x-V-S pattern in Isidor.  73 Table 16.  Type of clause-initial elements in x-V-S pattern in Physiologus.  75 Table 17.  Clause-initial elements in x-S-V pattern in Genesis.  76



List of tables

Table 18.  Type of clause-initial element in x-S-V pattern with pronominal subjects in Bede.  77 Table 19.  Clause-initial elements in x-S-V pattern in Luke.  79 Table 20.  Clause-initial elements in x-S-V pattern in Tatian.  81 Table 21.  Clause-initial elements in x-S-V pattern in Isidor.  82 Table 22.  Intervening phrases in the S-x-V pattern in Genesis.  83 Table 23.  Intervening phrases in the S-x-V pattern in Bede.  84 Table 24.  Intervening phrases in the S-x-V pattern in Luke.  85 Table 25.  Intervening phrases in the S-x-V pattern in Tatian  86 Table 26.  Intervening phrases in the S-x-V pattern in Isidor.  87 Table 27.  Relation to Latin in V-2 and V-late clauses in Genesis.  89 Table 28.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 clauses in Genesis.  89 Table 29.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-late clauses in Genesis.  91 Table 30.  Relation to Latin in V-2 and V-late clauses in Bede.  93 Table 31.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 and V-late clauses in Bede.  94 Table 32.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-late clauses in Bede.  96 Table 33.  Relation to Latin in V-2 and V-late clauses in Luke.  98 Table 34.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 clauses in Luke.  98 Table 35.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 and V-late clauses in Luke.  100 Table 36.  Relation to Latin in V-2 and V-late clauses in Tatian.  102 Table 37.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 clauses in Tatian.  103 Table 38.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-late clauses in Tatian.  105 Table 39.  Relation to Latin in V-2 and V-late clauses in Isidor.  106 Table 40.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 clauses in Isidor.  106 Table 41.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-late clauses in Isidor.  108 Table 42.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 clauses in Physiologus.  110 Table 43.  Proportions of V-2 and V-late clauses with modified element order.  111 Table 44.  Modifications of source clause order in V-2 and V-late declarative clauses.  112 Table 45.  Proportion of clauses following the Latin order in various patterns.  113 Table 46.  Differences between clauses following and modifying source text order.  113 Table 47.  Rate of inversion of pronominal and nominal subjects with and without þa and þonne.  114

Chapter 4 Table 1.  The frequency of V-1 in non-conjunct main declarative clauses with S.  127 Table 2.  Verb types in V-1 declaratives.  128 Table 3.  The frequency of the V-1 order in clauses with wesan, beon and cweðan.  130 Table 4.  The frequency of the V-1 order in clauses with quedan, wesan, queman, gangan and werdan.  132 Table 5.  The proportion of nominal vs. pronominal subjects in V-1 declaratives.  133

xi

xii Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 6.  The degree of correspondence between the V-1 pattern in source and target texts.  138 Table 7.  Relation to Latin in V-1 clauses in Genesis.  138 Table 8.  Relation to Latin in V-1 clauses in Bede.  140 Table 9.  Relation to Latin in V-1 clauses in Luke.  142 Table 10.  Relation to Latin in V-1 clauses in Tatian.  143 Table 11.  Relation to Latin in V-1 clauses in Isidor.  145

Chapter 5 Table 1.  All types of subordinates: order distribution.  164 Table 2.  All types of subordinates: order distribution in longer clauses.  166 Table 3.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Genesis.  166 Table 4.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Bede.  167 Table 5.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Luke.  167 Table 6.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Tatian.  167 Table 7.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Isidor.  168 Table 8.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Physiologus.  168 Table 9.  Post-verbal phrases in V-prefinal clauses (clause constituents).  169 Table 10.  Post-verbal phrases in V-prefinal clauses (phrase types).  171 Table 11.  The frequency of clauses with phrases of at least three words in length.  176 Table 12.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Genesis.  176 Table 13.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Bede.  178 Table 14.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Luke.  179 Table 15.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Tatian.  180 Table 16.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Isidor.  181 Table 17.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Physiologus.  182 Table 18.  The effect of weight and the V-final order.  183 Table 19.  The impact of weight in all subordinates.  183 Table 20.  Semantic subtypes of adverbial clauses in the texts.  185 Table 21.  Distribution of orders in the selected subtypes of adverbial clauses in Genesis.  186 Table 22.  Element order of selected subtypes of adverbials in Bede.  187 Table 23.  Element order of selected subtypes of adverbials in Luke.  188 Table 24.  Element order of selected subtypes of adverbials in Tatian.  189 Table 25.  Element order of selected subtypes of adverbials in Isidor.  190 Table 26.  Element order of selected subtypes of adverbials in Physiologus.  191 Table 27.  Element order of subtypes of nominal clauses in Genesis.  195 Table 28.  Element order of subtypes of nominal clauses in Bede.  195 Table 29.  Element order of subtypes of nominal clauses in Luke.  196 Table 30.  Element order of subtypes of nominal clauses in Tatian.  197 Table 31.  Element order of subtypes of nominal clauses in Isidor.  198



List of tables xiii

Table 32.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Genesis.  201 Table 33.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Bede.  201 Table 34.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Luke.  202 Table 35.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Tatian.  203 Table 36.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Isidor.  203 Table 37.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Physiologus.  204 Table 38.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Genesis.  207 Table 39.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Bede.  208 Table 40.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Luke.  209 Table 41.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Tatian.  209 Table 42.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Isidor.  211 Table 43.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Physiologus.  211 Table 44.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Genesis.  214 Table 45.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Genesis.  214 Table 46.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Bede.  216 Table 47.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Bede.  216 Table 48.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Luke.  218 Table 49.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Luke.  218 Table 50.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Tatian.  220 Table 51.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Tatian.  221 Table 52.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Isidor.  223 Table 53.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Isidor.  223 Table 54.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Physiologus.  225 Table 55.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Physiologus.  225 Table 56.  Proportions of subordinate clauses with modified element order.  227 Table 57.  Subordinate clauses modifying Latin.  227 Table 58.  Subordinate clauses following Latin.  228 Table 59.  Comparison of order distribution in clauses following and modifying Latin.  229 Table 60.  Interplay of V-finality, weight and Latin influence.  233

Chapter 6 Table 1.  Classification of element order patterns in conjunct clauses.  242 Table 2.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Genesis.  243 Table 3.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Bede.  245

xiv Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 4.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Luke.  246 Table 5.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Tatian.  248 Table 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Isidor.  250 Table 7.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Physiologus.  251 Table 8.  Consistence of element order with V-2 and V-final rules.  252 Table 9.  Element order in same-subject and different-subject clauses in Genesis.  254 Table 10.  Element order in same-subject and different-subject clauses in Bede.  255 Table 11.  Element order in same-subject and different-subject clauses in Luke.  256 Table 12.  Influence of locative phrases on the order of conjuncts in Genesis.  258 Table 13.  Influence of locative phrases on the order of conjuncts in Bede.  259 Table 14.  Influence of locative phrases on the order of conjuncts in Luke.  260 Table 15.  Proportion of different verb types in V-1 vs. other patterns in Tatian.  261 Table 16.  Proportion of different verb types in V-1 vs. other patterns in Isidor.  262 Table 17.  Proportion of different verb types in V-1 vs. other patterns in Physiologus.  263 Table 18.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Genesis.  265 Table 19.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Genesis.  265 Table 20.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Bede.  267 Table 21.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Bede.  267 Table 22.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Luke.  270 Table 23.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Luke.  270 Table 24.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Tatian.  271 Table 25.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Tatian.  272 Table 26.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Isidor.  273 Table 27.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Isidor.  273 Table 28.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Physiologus.  274 Table 29.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Physiologus.  275 Table 30.  Rules of element order in clauses modifying Latin.  276 Table 31.  Rules of element order in clauses following Latin.  276 Table 32.  Comparison of non-conjunct and conjunct clauses (strictly V-final order).  279 Table 33.  Comparison of non-conjunct and conjunct clauses (V-late order).  279

Chapter 7 Table 1.  Position of pronominal objects in relation to V in Genesis according to clause type in clauses with simple VP.  289 Table 2.  Position of pronominal objects in Bede according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP.  290



List of tables xv

Table 3.  Position of pronominal objects in Luke according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP.  292 Table 4.  Position of pronominal objects in Tatian according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP.  293 Table 5.  Position of pronominal objects in relation to V in Isidor according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP.  294 Table 6.  Position of pronominal objects in relation to V in Physiologus according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP.  296 Table 7.  Position of nominal objects in relation to V in Genesis according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP.  297 Table 8.  Position of nominal objects in relation to V in Bede according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP.  299 Table 9.  Position of nominal objects in relation to V in Luke according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP.  300 Table 10.  Position of nominal objects in Tatian according to clause type in clauses with simple VP.  301 Table 11.  Position of nominal objects in Isidor according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP.  302 Table 12.  Position of nominal objects in Physiologus according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP.  303 Table 13.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Genesis in clauses with a complex VP.  304 Table 14.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Bede in clauses with a complex VP.  305 Table 15.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Luke in clauses with a complex VP.  305 Table 16.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Tatian in clauses with a complex VP.  306 Table 17.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Isidor in clauses with a complex VP.  307 Table 18.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Physiologus in clauses with a complex VP.  307 Table 19.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Genesis (simple VP).  309 Table 20.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Genesis (simple VP).  310 Table 21.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Bede (simple VP).  311 Table 22.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Bede (simple VP).  313 Table 23.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Luke (simple VP).  314 Table 24.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Luke (simple VP).  316 Table 25.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Tatian (simple VP).  317 Table 26.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Tatian (simple VP).  319 Table 27.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Isidor (simple VP).  321 Table 28.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Isidor (simple VP).  322 Table 29.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Physiologus (simple VP).  324

xvi Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 30.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Physiologus (simple VP).  326 Table 31.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Genesis (complex VP).  327 Table 32.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Genesis (complex VP).  327 Table 33.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Bede (complex VP).  328 Table 34.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Bede (complex VP).  329 Table 35.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Luke (complex VP).  330 Table 36.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Luke (complex VP).  330 Table 37.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Tatian (complex VP).  331 Table 38.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Tatian (complex VP).  331 Table 39.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Isidor (complex VP).  332 Table 40.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Isidor (complex VP).  332 Table 41.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Physiologus (complex VP).  333 Table 42.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Physiologus (complex VP).  334 Table 43.  Clauses with modified object positions in the OV and VO pattern (simple VP).  335 Table 44.  Proportions of OV and VO clauses with modified element order (complex VP).  335 Table 46.  Differences between clauses following and modifying source text order (simple VP).  336

Chapter 8 Table 1.  Distribution of various clause types in the source texts.  347 Table 2.  Distribution of finite verb positions in the source texts.  348 Table 3.  Proportion of clauses with an overt subject in the source texts.  350 Table 4.  Proportion of clauses translated phrase by phrase in the translations.  351 Table 5.  OE/OHG non-conjunct main declarative clauses with V-1 Latin sources.  353 Table 6.  ‘V-1 into V-1’ non-conjunct clauses with and without overt subjects.  355 Table 7.  Conjunct clauses with V-1 Latin sources.  356 Table 8.  ‘V-1 into V-1’ conjunct clauses with and without overt subjects.  358 Table 9.  OE/OHG subordinate clauses with V-1 Latin sources.  360 Table 10.  OE/OHG non-conjunct main declarative clauses with V-final Latin sources.  361 Table 11.  OE/OHG conjunct clauses with V-final Latin sources.  363 Table 12.  Subordinate clauses with V-final Latin sources.  364 Table 13.  Comparison of V-final and V-early subordinates with V-1 and V-final sources.  365 Table 14.  Translation of Latin non-finite clauses.  366 Table 15.  Translation of Latin absolute constructions.  368 Table 16.  Frequencies of element order patterns found in clauses containing three elements in the Latin versions of Genesis, Luke and Tatian.  374



List of tables xvii

Table 17.  Frequencies of element order patterns found in clauses containing three elements in the Latin versions of Bede, Isidor and Physiologus.  375 Table 18.  Proportions of instances of lexically recurrent clauses in the total number of Latin clauses.  375 Table 19.  An example of a Latin formula and its translations in Genesis.  376 Table 20.  Lexically recurrent Latin clauses with their OE equivalents in Genesis.  376 Table 21.  Lexically recurrent Latin clauses with their OE equivalents in Luke.  377 Table 22.  Lexically recurrent Latin clauses with their OHG equivalents in Tatian.  377 Table 23.  Lexically recurrent Latin clauses with their OHG equivalents in Isidor.  377

Chapter 9 Table 1.  The order of non-conjunct declarative clauses with S in Genesis.  384 Table 2.  The order of subordinate clauses in Genesis.  384 Table 3.  The order of conjunct clauses in Genesis.  385 Table 4.  The position of objects in Genesis.  386 Table 5.  The order of non-conjunct declarative clauses with S in Bede.  387 Table 6.  The order of subordinate clauses in Bede.  388 Table 7.  The order of conjunct clauses in Bede.  389 Table 8.  The position of objects in Bede.  389 Table 9.  The order of non-conjunct declarative clauses with S in Luke.  390 Table 10.  The order of subordinate clauses in Luke.  391 Table 11.  The order of conjunct clauses in Luke.  391 Table 12.  The position of objects in Luke.  392 Table 13.  The order of non-conjunct declarative clauses with S in Tatian.  395 Table 14.  The order of subordinate clauses in Tatian.  397 Table 15.  The order of conjunct clauses in Tatian.  397 Table 16.  The position of objects in Tatian.  397 Table 17.  The order of non-conjunct declarative clauses with S in Isidor.  398 Table 18.  The order of subordinate clauses in Isidor.  399 Table 19.  The order of conjunct clauses in Isidor.  400 Table 20.  The position of objects in Isidor.  400 Table 21.  The order of non-conjunct declarative clauses with S in Physiologus.  401 Table 22.  The order of subordinate clauses in Physiologus.  401 Table 23.  The order of conjunct clauses in Physiologus.  401 Table 24.  The position of objects in Physiologus.  402

Preface

This book is the end product of the project A corpus-based study of the influence of Latin syntax on the word order of selected Old English and Old High German translations, carried out by Anna Cichosz, Jerzy Gaszewski, Piotr Pęzik and Maciej Grabski at the University of Łódź, and supported financially by the National Science Centre (Polish Narodowe Centrum Nauki, grant no. N N104 379140). The idea behind the project was to conduct a comparative study of Old English and Old High German element order, and to base the investigation on translated material. In this way, we intended to establish some common ground between the two languages, limiting the apparent incomparability of Old English and Old High German textual records. In the course of the project, we analysed the degree of Latin influence on the element order of the translations included in our study corpus. We wanted to measure and assess the relative dependence of the texts on their Latin sources, identify element order patterns independent from Latin, and compare Old English and Old High German on the basis of such independent structures. Therefore, the main aim of this book is to produce a descriptive comparison of the two languages, based on a reliable corpus of texts, with consistent control for the potential influence of Latin, which was possible thanks to the ENHIGLA parallel corpus of source and target texts created for the purpose of our analysis. Naturally, the choice of the element order phenomena discussed in this book is not exhaustive. We decided to focus on the basic clause types and patterns typically discussed in the literature in the context of Old English and Old High German. Space did not permit us to cover every interesting aspect of Old Germanic syntax, but we believe that the analysis of the topics discussed in Chapters 3-8 allows us to draw some general conclusions about the similarities and differences between the languages, which are presented in the final chapter of the book. There are many people who supported us in this undertaking. First and foremost, we would like to thank the reviewers of this book, Robert A. Cloutier and Oliver Schallert, as well as the editors, Hans Frede Nielsen and John Ole Askedal, whose comments, suggestions and numerous valuable observations allowed us to improve the initial version of the manuscript. At an even earlier stage, various parts of what has become this book were presented as papers at conferences,

2

Preface

including those of the ICEHL and MESS series. We are certain that the comments and questions from the audiences helped to guide our work in the right direction. We are grateful to Maciej Grabski, who assisted us in the syntactic annotation of texts for the ENHIGLA corpus, Krzysztof Tomasz Witczak for his help with the analysis of the Latin sources, Maciej Cichosz for the Excel formula which saved us hours of work, Rafał Molencki for his constant and friendly support as well as Ewa Waniek-Klimczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Piotr Stalmaszczyk for their encouragement. We also wish to thank our families for their understanding during this extremely busy time; we do realise that we spent too many weekends, evenings and holidays working on this book. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Martin Hinton, who patiently proofread the whole text, fishing out all the clumsy passages, identifying places where our words did not form a logical whole, and adding countless commas to our text. All the remaining weaknesses of the book (including the few potentially missing commas) remain our own responsibility.

Chapter 1

Studying the element order of Old Germanic languages

1.1 Introduction The syntax of Modern English is evidently different from that of Modern German, especially with regard to the order of clause elements (more commonly, but less precisely, known as ‘word order’). About a thousand years ago, in the Old Germanic period, the two sister languages were much closer and shared many syntactic characteristics. Yet, their rules for element order were no longer identical and one can notice interesting differences, which have not been systematically explored. Both Old English and Old High German1 have received considerable attention, and there are a number of in-depth studies of their syntactic systems and element order (among others Fischer et al. 2000, Mitchell 1985, Bean 1983, Kohonen 1978 for OE and Axel 2007, Petrova 2009, Dittmer & Dittmer 1998, Robinson 1997 for OHG). However, individual authors have different approaches, make different theoretical assumptions and analyse texts of different kinds. As a result, their observations, conclusions and (sometimes) statistics are hardly comparable. A number of works compare selected structures in the two languages (e.g. passive constructions in Mailhammer & Smirnova 2013, presentational structures in Pfenninger 2013, and futurity markers in Diewald & Wischer 2013). Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, there is only one book which aims to be a comprehensive syntactic comparison of OE and OHG (Davis & Bernhardt 2002). This study compares homilies of Ælfric for OE (original [i.e. non-translated] prose from the late 10th and early 11th century) and the Tatian Gospel translation for OHG (an early 9th century translation from Latin, commonly criticised for its slavish character). The divergence of text type and the comparison of an original composition with a translation make the results of such analyses questionable, especially because Tatian is considered an independent translation by the authors (Davis & Bernhardt 2002; cf. also Bernhardt & Davis 1997: 22–23), which is a highly controversial assumption, in opposition to other studies. 1.  Henceforth referred to as OE and OHG, respectively.

4

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

It cannot be denied that there is an objective methodological problem in finding comparable textual material for the two languages (for details, cf. section 1.3). This book is a comparative study of element order based on translated texts only. This decision, however unorthodox it may seem at first, is dictated by the nature of the surviving texts. Since translations are the chief sources of information about OHG, we decided to use this type of text also for OE. In this way, we aim to minimise the problem of comparability. At the same time, we do realise that, because of the limited number of extant texts, the problem cannot be fully solved. The aim of our study is to provide a thorough analysis of selected element order phenomena in OE and OHG translations, identifying areas of possible foreign influence and native patterns, and to compare the two languages on the basis of the latter. The secondary aim of the study is to assess the degree of syntactic dependence of the selected translations on their source texts. In order to achieve these goals, we have decided to base our investigations on a parallel corpus of texts, with translations and their source texts annotated at the phrase level and aligned at the clause level. The corpus enabled a direct quantitative analysis of element order patterns in the samples of texts selected for this study. As far as methodology is concerned, our analysis is a data-driven descriptive comparison of the two systems. While we make use of insights from formal accounts of OE and OHG grammar, we do not follow any formalised approach ourselves. In the absence of comprehensive and reliable comparative works, we aim to identify and describe text-independent patterns of element order in the two languages, which will hopefully become a good basis for further investigations making use of various approaches. The following sections discuss three broad topics: element order, Old Germanic languages and the study of translations to give a broader theoretical background for various analytic and methodological choices we made, as well as for the analysis proper. 1.2 Element order The sequence in which words and phrases are arranged to create meaningful and grammatical sentences in a given language has been studied by numerous linguists representing various approaches to the subject and investigating languages of all parts of the world. Linear ordering is a feature of human language linked to the nature of spoken (and written) channel of communication. In this book, we consistently use the term ‘element order’ to refer to the ordering of phrases in a clause. In this way, we eschew the very common practice of using the label ‘word order’,



Chapter 1.  Studying the element order of Old Germanic languages

which should be reserved for the lower level ordering in syntax: that of words within phrases. One very common assumption in linguistics is that there exists a ‘basic’ relative order of the main constituents of a clause, subject, object and verb, and that classifying languages into types according to the six possible permutations of S, V and O is an important description of the character of the language. First attempts at a classification of languages based on element order were made in the 18th century (Ramat 2011: 17), but modern syntactic typology goes back to Greenberg (1963). Greenberg demonstrated correlations of the element orders SVO, SOV, VSO etc. with word orders inside phrases (like Adj-Noun vs. Noun-Adj). There are a number of problems with the element order and word order labels introduced by Greenberg and others. First of all, languages allow for variation in order to a different degree.2 Thus, element order labels are often “oversimplifications” and “shorthand labels” (Connolly 1991: 34).3 One way to deal with order variation is to qualify the labels (e.g. ‘usually SVO’ or ‘SOV in dependent clauses’). Despite its problems, the ‘word order typology’ still enjoys popularity. For example, it is usually the only typological information about a language in Ethnologue, the only database aiming to cover all the languages of the world. A number of developments have been proposed since Greenberg’s pioneering studies, perhaps the most important of which was to reduce the constituents considered to the verb and (direct) object, yielding two types: VO and OV (Lehmann 1973). The VO/OV feature was thought to be central to syntax, and a good predictor of word order in phrases. Vennemann (1974) proposed the more abstract labels operatoroperand (modifier-head) and operand-operator (head-modifier) for typological classification. However, recent wide-scale typological studies have not confirmed this assumed ‘priviliged’ status of the relative order of the verb and the object as the chief predictor for word orders in phrases (Dryer 1988, 2013a). In an earlier work, Dryer (1992 in Song 2011: 269–270) suggests that the branching of a given phrase type may be the factor accounting for the observed typological patterns: phrasal 2.  The degree of freedom in the possible ordering within a clause has long been associated with morphological complexity. More analytic languages express syntactic relations by means of their position, languages with rich inflectional morphology allow for more variation. The generalisation holds well for European languages. Yet, in Mandarin, for example, there is virtually no inflection but pragmatically-based order variation is commonplace. 3.  Connolly mentions more detailed problems: the labels obscure variation in patterning from one type of clause to another, they fail to mention the position of the complement, they do not distinguish the finite from the non-finite components of the verb phrase, and they never show alternative unmarked orderings, e.g. various positions taken by pronominal and non-pronominal elements (Connolly 1991: 34).

5

6

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(i.e. branching) categories follow one pattern, and non-phrasal (non-branching) categories – a different one. Another proposed explanation of element order patterns in languages relies on the universal tendency to put long phrases late in the clause (cf. Croft 1993: 57–58, also Behaghel’s 1932 ‘Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder’). This is based on the economy of language processing (cf. Hawkins 1994) and may override other rules of element order. Still a different approach to element order is to divide languages into those with fixed and those with free element/word order. Song (2011: 255) goes as far as to claim that the concept of basic order is “irrelevant” in languages that allow flexibility in the ordering of main clause constituents. Let us add that ‘free word order’ is one of the most notorious misnomers in linguistics. There is freedom of ordering from the point of view of syntactic functions, but the element order of ‘free word order’ languages is determined by pragmatic factors, especially information structure. Thus, we can identify languages in which word order primarily correlates with pragmatic factors and those in which order primarily correlates with grammatical relations (Payne 1992:1). In the same vein, Li & Thompson (1976) distinguish subject-prominence and topic-prominence in the ordering rules of different languages.4 Probably the harshest criticism of word order typology comes from Dixon (2010 I: 71), who calls it “the most insidious fad that has infiltrated linguistics”. He shows the weakness of this approach using a specific example (Boumaa Fijian). Taking into account the actual distribution of syntactic patterns in the language, he states that the problem of basic order is “not a very important or even a very real question” (Dixon 2010 I: 74). Let us recall Connolly’s (1991) claim that element order labels are “shorthand”. Indeed, the conciseness of the labels is very misleading. For example, Haeberli (2001: 201) calls Modern German an “SOV/Verb Second language”, which, if taken literally, is a contradiction in terms. The solution of the face-value paradox is that the V-2 rule applies to main clauses, while SOV describes the ordering in subordinate clauses (and, possibly, some word order features that typically correlate with (S)OV). The problem surfaces in other cases as well: Bean (1983) classifies both Modern English and OE as V-3 languages, which is not supposed to mean that the verb is in the third position in every clause or even in most of the clauses. For the sake of comparison, let us mention that Dryer (2013b) classifies Modern German as having “no dominant order”, and Lass (1994: 227–228) sees Modern English as 4.  The role of information structure in element order had already been noted in the 19th century by Weil (Graffi 2011: 29) and was of basic importance for the Prague School. For a discussion in the context of OE, see Bean (1983: 18–25).



Chapter 1.  Studying the element order of Old Germanic languages

SVO and OE as SOV. As can be seen, linguists make different assumptions and use different criteria for element order classification, resulting in conflicting labels. Element order is subject to both synchronic variation and diachronic change. If one approaches the problem by focusing on the actual synchronic variation rather than the ‘basic’, ‘dominant’ or ‘typical’ order, a multitude of factors that come into play are uncovered. A list provided by Connolly (1991: 131–132 following Crystal & Davy 1969) includes factors like: individuality of the speaker, the speaker’s regional, social and occupational background, medium (spoken vs. written), participation of interlocutors (monologue vs. dialogue), status of the speaker in relation to the audience, modality (prose vs. verse) as well as deliberate stylistic idiosyncrasy. Connolly (1991: 132) quotes many authors who claim that the existence of synchronic variation, i.e. competing variants, is a precondition for a change of element order or word order. Such changes are, in turn, very often quantitative rather than qualitative in nature. Therefore, the relative frequency of patterns may change through time, with all the competing orders still being used. Nonetheless, serious qualitative changes are also possible. One language which has drastically changed its element order in the course of its history is English (from the wide array of possible patterns in OE, to the relatively fixed SVO of Present Day English, with occasional stylistic modifications). Another example is the emergence of a fixed element order during the evolution of Latin into Romance languages.5 Not all languages are equally dynamic in this respect, but word order and element order are, in general, a popular area of study in historical linguistics (with both synchronic and diachronic investigations of selected stages in the development of various languages), even though the analysis of the order in historical languages raises some serious methodological challenges, which are discussed in detail in the following sections. In short, the order of words and phrases in a clause is characteristic of a given language (with various languages exhibiting different tendencies in the relative proportions of certain patterns) as well as context-dependent (with a given language employing different orders depending on information structure, style and register), and there may also be certain syntactic limitations; i.e. a particular order may be preferred, or even obligatory, in a given clause type. Thus, the number of factors which need to be considered in the analysis of element order is great. In translated texts, yet another important factor has to be considered: the potential influence of the source text order.

5.  These extensive changes co-occurred with morphological restructuring of the systems, with both English and Romance languages undergoing a global change from synthetic to analytic structures.

7

8

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

1.3 Available sources for Old Germanic languages While the title of this book clearly states that we compare only two Old Germanic languages in this study, we must take a broader look and discuss the whole language family in order to present the general context for our analysis. The amount and quality of the surviving textual material varies considerably among the Old Germanic languages. The records of some of them are extremely poor and limited in genre (e.g. Old Dutch), whereas others have survived in the form of a rich and diverse corpus (e.g. Old English and Old Norse). Studying element order is obviously a difficult task in the former situation. Yet, various methodological traps make even the relatively well-recorded languages quite problematic to study. Gothic, the only attested representative of the East Germanic branch, can be studied on the basis of only one longer text, namely the Silver Bible (Codex Argenteus), a 4th-century translation of the best part of the gospels from Greek into Gothic, created by the bishop Wulfilas, and recorded in a manuscript from the 6th century. Apart from that, the only sources at our disposal are the Skeireins, a short Gothic commentary on the Gospel of John (ca. eight pages; the only Gothic text written directly by a native speaker), a fragment of a Gothic church calendar, some interpretations of Latin homilies written in the margins of a manuscript, some personal names in Greek and Latin texts (Robinson 1992: 47–48) and the recently discovered Bologna fragments (Falluomini 2014). On the other hand, Old Norse, representing the North Germanic branch, is a very well attested language, though all the extant texts from before the 12th century are runic inscriptions, which are by nature short and, thus, syntactic studies based on them are rather limited. Since it is assumed that Old Norse was spoken until the beginning of the 14th century, its famous literature, i.e. the poetic Edda and the prose Edda, was recorded when most of the other Old Germanic languages had already shifted to the ‘middle’ period (though it should be noted that both Eddas may contain material which had functioned for a long time in the oral tradition).6 Apart from the Eddas, which are the most important sources of information on Norse mythology, there is also skaldic poetry (very difficult to study from a syntactic point of view since it was regulated by very strict rules of rhyme, rhythm and alliteration), numerous sagas, Íslendingabók (Book of the Icelanders, 6.  The standard division between Old and Middle periods in Germanic languages is linked to morphological and phonological criteria (see fn. 8). However, the use of the adjective ‘old’ can be very misleading (see the case of Frisian below) and it must be clear what it stands for in any given case. Certainly, such a label is vacuous if one compares languages of different families, consider e.g. Old Latin, OE and Old Polish. No feature other than being the earliest recorded period links these three.



Chapter 1.  Studying the element order of Old Germanic languages

the first Icelandic historical work), numerous translations of homilies, sermons and lives of saints, and even a linguistic essay written by the ‘First Grammarian’, namely a text dealing with the phonology of Old Norse (Kristjánsson 1988). Nonetheless, even though Old Norse seems to be an easy object of study, when it comes to comparative work, the task poses many problems which boil down to two variables: time and space. The time factor has already been mentioned: the rich Old Norse material is at least 3 centuries younger than the late OE or OHG7 texts, not to mention Gothic, with its main source written in the 4th century and recorded in the 6th century. As for space, it has to be noted that the best part of the above-mentioned literature was written down in Iceland and, as a result, the terms ‘Old Norse’ and ‘Old Icelandic’ tend to be used interchangeably. The choice of the term is sometimes “political”, with different preferences functioning in different academic traditions (Haugan 2000: 5–7). Because of this clear dominance of a single geographical area, it must be borne in mind that Old Norse represents the language used only in the Western part of Scandinavia, i.e. Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and in the Norse settlements in the British Isles and Greenland (Faarlund 2004: 1). The West Germanic branch is much more varied when it comes to recorded material; there are texts written in five different languages: OE, OHG, Old Saxon, Old Dutch and Old Frisian, with the last one definitely standing out because of its exceptional periodisation. The oldest texts written in Old Frisian (apart from a few older runic inscriptions) date from the 13th century, when other Germanic languages, apart from Old Norse, were in their ‘middle’ period. It is assumed that the Old Frisian period lasted till the 16th century, when the other Old Germanic languages are already mostly classified as ‘modern’. The periodisation of Frisian is a controversial issue and many scholars suggest that the term ‘middle’ should be used instead.8 As for textual material, Old Frisian has come down to us in the form of over 1,300 texts, all the important ones being legal documents (Robinson 1992: 181); they can be classified as original prose compositions, though very limited in form.

7.  It is generally (and conventionally) assumed that both the OE and the OHG period ended in the 11th century (cf. Table 1). 8.  A number of features are taken into account when deciding when a given Germanic language shifted to the ‘middle’ stage. The traditional approach, going back to Grimm, bases the distinction on the quality of vowels in unstressed syllables, especially case endings. If they still have ‘full vowels’ (i.e. /u/, /o/, /a/), the language is classified as ‘old’. Since the Frisian used between the 13th and 16th century does not demonstrate this feature, the term ‘old’ is not fully justified (Bremmer 2009: 121–122).

9

10

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Our knowledge of Old Dutch, known also as Old Low Franconian, is seriously limited since the existing records are extremely scarce and consist of glosses, a short verse line (the famous hebban olla vogala nestas hagunnan ‘all birds have started making nests’) and a psalter translation, the fragmentary Wachtendonck Psalms (van der Wal & Quak 1994: 72). Some scholars even doubt whether a language called Old Low Franconian ever existed, claiming that it is so similar to OE that it could be treated as one of its dialects (Shay 2008: 75). The major Old Saxon text is the Heliand, a 9th-century alliterative epic poem presenting the story of Jesus and based on all four gospels. The poem uses a clearly Germanic form (alliterative verse) but the most interesting feature of the poem is that the anonymous author modified the story so as to make it closer to the circumstances familiar to his audience: the events are set not in the Holy Land but on the plains of northern Germany and many details are changed, e.g. the angel announces the birth of Jesus to men tending not sheep but horses (Robinson 1992: 109). Thus, the composition cannot be treated as a translation of the gospels but rather as a free verse adaptation of the original text; foreign influences on syntax can therefore be largely excluded. Another verse adaptation of the gospels was created in OHG by Otfrid from Weissenburg, who composed his rhyming Evangelienbuch in the 9th century. There is also a famous (though much shorter) alliterative poem, Hildebrandslied, representing a mixture of Old Saxon and OHG. Even though these two works are well-known records of OHG, translations and adaptations from Latin religious texts definitely dominate the OHG corpus (van der Wal & Quak 1994: 72). There are interlinear glosses (e.g. the Benedictine Rule), translations closely following the source text (most notably the OHG Tatian, which is a prose gospel harmony, i.e. a story of the life of Jesus based on all four gospels), and free translations (the one most commonly praised is the OHG Isidor: a translation of the treatise De fide catholica ex veteri et novo testamento contra Iudeos, written by Isidore of Sevilla). In addition, at the very end of the OHG period (ca. 1000 AD), the famous monk Notker Labeo produced a great number of free translations, commentaries and paraphrases of numerous works of classical Greek and Latin literature, e.g. Boethius’s De Consolatione Philosophiae, Pope Gregory I’s Morals, Capella’s Marriage of Mercury and Philology and Aristotle’s Categories (Axel 2007: 3). Original OHG prose compositions are rare and short; apart from some proverbs and the Oaths of Strasbourg, hardly anything survives. OE, like Old Norse, is quite well recorded and the surviving texts represent many different genres, though one of the four attested dialects, namely West Saxon, dominates the whole corpus. A great number of texts in West Saxon appeared in the 9th century due to the literary and cultural activity of King Alfred the Great (‘early West Saxon’). Late West Saxon, on the other hand, is attested



Chapter 1.  Studying the element order of Old Germanic languages

mainly in the numerous works of Ælfric and Wulfstan. On the whole, the OE corpus includes heroic, elegiac and biblical poetry with such famous examples as Beowulf, Widsith and Genesis (most of the orally transmitted poetry was recorded in the Exeter Book, the Beowulf manuscript, the Junius manuscript, and the Vercelli Book). The best known original prose composition, apart from the already mentioned works of Ælfric and Wulfstan, is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, while OE translations include Orosius, Pope Gregory’s Cura Pastoralis and Dialogues, Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, Boethius’s De Consolatione Philosophiae, the West Saxon Gospels and the OE Heptateuch. There are also interlinear glosses, with the Lindisfarne Gospels as the most famous example. Thus, the OE material is ample and diverse, with examples of poetry and prose, both translated and composed by native speakers. 1.4 Comparing the comparable Being aware of the limited material at our disposal, let us consider the potential methodological problems that need to be taken into account when designing a comparative study of Old Germanic languages. Table 1.  The periodisation of Old Germanic languages and the available sources for their study. Language

Periodisation9

Surviving texts

Gothic

  4th century

Translation and a single original prose composition

OE

  7th–11th century

Poetry, original prose compositions, translations

OHG

  8th–11th century

Poetry, translations

Old Dutch

  8th–12th century

Translations

Old Saxon

  9th–12th century

A poem based on the Bible

Old Norse

  9th–14th century

Poetry, original prose compositions, translations

Old Frisian

13th–16th century

Original prose compositions (legal documents)

Table  1 shows the conventional periodisation of Old Germanic languages and summarises the sources available for analysis. The differences between languages with regard to time of attestation are problematic as they may amount to a few centuries: if we wanted to compare Gothic and Old Norse, we would have to analyse 9.  Standard periodisation with the beginning of the period marked by the dating of the earliest written records and the end of the period assumed conventionally on the basis of linguistic criteria (mainly phonological and morphological).

11

12

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

texts from the 4th century (6th, if we treat the date of the manuscript as decisive) with texts from the 13th century (as all the earlier Old Norse records are short runic inscriptions). Old Frisian is even more detached from Gothic, and since many scholars suggest it should be treated as ‘Middle Frisian’, a comparative study of the two seems unsound. Even a comparative study of OE and Old Norse would involve comparing a 10th-century text (or older) with a 13th-century composition; the difference is still ca. 300 years. A certain degree of arbitrariness in the periodisation of Old Germanic languages does not mean that time differences between languages can simply be ignored. Even within one conventionally assumed period, a language can undergo substantial changes. When designing a syntactic study, one should be especially careful since the periodisation criteria are usually phonological or morphological (cf. Bahnick 1973 and Bremmer 2009), which means that major syntactic changes, at least theoretically, could take place in the middle of a given period. As a result, lumping together e.g. OE texts from the 8th, 9th and 10th century can seriously distort the results of any syntactic study, not only a comparative one. However, scholars’ attitudes to such time differences vary and they are not always perceived as a serious problem. For instance, in Davis (2006), OE, Old Norse and OHG are compared on the basis of homilies by Ælfric (OE original prose, 10th century), works of Snorri Sturluson (Old Norse original prose, 13th century) and Tatian Gospel Harmony (OHG translation, 9th century). The author created such a diversified corpus because he decided to choose the best examples of prose written in each of these languages,10 and the time differences were a factor that he was willing to accept. The reliability of the results obtained on the basis of such a corpus can easily be challenged. The question of the importance of time differences between the analysed languages is also linked to the character and aims of the study. If a study is simply contrastive, then time differences are inconsequential. However, our study, and all those mentioned in this section, take a genetic approach, i.e. they deal with genetically related languages, and relatedness is a key element in the investigation. In that case, the distance from the common ancestor is of great importance. Lastly, we ought to remember that much more hazardous comparisons have been made in historical linguistics; the time difference of 400 years in Davis (2006) becomes less shocking in this perspective.11

10.  Tatian is a controversial choice here since the translation is often criticised for its high dependence on the original word and element order, as discussed in Chapter 2 (section 2.3). 11.  There have been attempts at linking Tibetan and Sumerian genetically. The gap between the records of these languages is several thousand years.



Chapter 1.  Studying the element order of Old Germanic languages

The other problem illustrated by Table 1 is the type of textual records. Only OE, Old Norse and Old Frisian are preserved in the form of original prose texts, and the differences with respect to the time of their composition are considerable. One language, i.e. Old Saxon, has come down to us mainly in verse, while Gothic, OHG and Old Dutch are known mostly on the basis of translations. Therefore, creating a corpus for a comparative study of two or more Old Germanic languages poses considerable problems. One of the options would be to ignore all the problematic texts and compare only the surviving original prose compositions. This would result in a very serious limitation of the available material, though in studies of individual Old Germanic languages, this is a very commonly adopted approach.12 Alternatively, one may consider all the available texts in order not to lose any important structures in the process of selection. This was the approach taken by Smith (1971), who compared various Old Germanic languages on the basis of a very diversified corpus: – for Old Scandinavian dialects: numerous Norwegian, Swedish and Danish runic inscriptions from the period after 600 A.D. – for Old Icelandic (i.e. Old Norse): Egil’s Saga (Egils Saga Skallagrimssonar) – for Gothic: Skeireins – for OHG: the Isidor translation, a collection of short prose and poetic works (e.g. Muspilli, Hildebrandslied) and excerpts from Otfrid’s Evangelienbuch – for Old Saxon: excerpts from Heliand – for OE: early entries of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Smith spends a lot of time in his dissertation on defending his choice of texts and explaining all the methodological problems he encountered. His approach is well illustrated with his own words: Of course, a study such as this must work with what is attested. I have chosen to take a very wide sampling of sentences from seven different sources in the hope that if significant idiosyncrasies do appear in any one corpus, they may be brought to light and identified by the data from the other corpora and evaluated accordingly. (Smith 1971: 43)

This would mean that Smith took what survived, hoping that if he came across an atypical structure, its absence in the other languages would bring it to light, and disregarding the possibility of his samples of two languages behaving in the same, but still atypical, way. If we consider just OE and OHG, the two languages 12.  In the case of OE, the most commonly studied texts are homilies by Ælfric (e.g. Barret 1953, Reszkiewicz 1966, Kohonen 1978, Davis & Bernhardt 2002) and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (e.g. Smith 1971, Bean 1983). Old Norse syntax is usually investigated on the basis of the prose sagas (e.g. Haugan 2000, Smith 1971).

13

14

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

investigated in the present study, it must be noted that in Smith (1971), a native text (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) is compared with a heterogeneous mixture of texts, most of which are translations. The same is true of the study by Davis & Bernhardt (2002), who compared the Tatian translation with homilies by Ælfric (the same texts are used in Davis 2006). There is no obvious choice when it comes to comparing two languages which differ so much with regard to textual attestation; if an obvious choice existed, comparative studies of OE and OHG would be much more numerous. The idea behind the present project was to create a comparative study of two Old Germanic languages in which we can control the main variables that must have influenced the element order of the surviving textual material, i.e. time and genre. The pair of languages selected for analysis are OE and OHG, and this choice has three major advantages: 1. The periodisation of both languages is very similar and thus the differences between the time of composition of the texts chosen for analysis are reasonable (i.e. 200 years rather than 600). 2. Both languages belong to the West Germanic group, which means that until the 11th century they are assumed to have been quite close, including in terms of syntax. This fact has led some scholars to believe that they are structurally identical.13 Our analysis will include a discussion of this claim. 3. OE is recorded in the form of both original and translated texts; OHG records are mostly translations. Having at least one language with original prose samples makes it possible for us to check if conclusions drawn on the basis of translated material also apply to original texts; this allowed us to improve our methodology and make our conclusions regarding OHG more reliable. 1.5 Translations: a second choice for a syntactic study The problem of replicating source text structures in the target text is an ancient one. The distinction between word for word (verbum pro verbo) and sense for sense (sensum pro senso) translation goes back to Cicero (1st century BC) and St Jerome (4th century AD). The tension between the relative autonomy of the translated text and the importance of formal equivalence became especially visible 13.  Davis & Bernhardt in their Syntax of West Germanic: the syntax of OE and OHG (2002) claim that there are virtually no differences between the two languages, they both represent “West Germanic syntax” and that we can safely transfer observations from one language to the other (since the OHG material is much more problematic, this would involve describing OHG syntax on the basis of OE texts). This claim has been challenged in Cichosz (2010).



Chapter 1.  Studying the element order of Old Germanic languages

in late antiquity, when “the foreign texts at issue are often key religious documents, notably the Bible” (Venuti 2000: 14). Jerome himself claims that the ‘word for word’ method should be reserved for Scripture because “the very order of the words is a mystery”,14 while other texts should rather be translated ‘sense for sense’ (Venuti 2000: 15). Similar concerns were also expressed in other ancient cultures with rich translation traditions, i.e. China and the Arab world (Munday 2001: 20). The reflections by OE translators on the topic are quoted in section 2.3 of the following chapter. One should perhaps add that the two approaches may blend in actual practice. Unless the source language and target language are very different typologically, a translation that is sense for sense in principle is bound to contain some word for word or phrase for phrase passages. Also, according to Vinay and Darbelnet’s model, literal (i.e. ‘word for word’) translation is the most natural translation strategy which should only be abandoned if it gives a different meaning, renders a given statement incomprehensible or is impossible for structural reasons. In such cases, the translator should resort to oblique translation (Munday 2001: 57). In general, scholars usually feel at least slightly uncomfortable when analysing syntax on the basis of translations. Potential risks seem to outnumber potential benefits and the dangers are twofold: (1) the order of words or clause constituents in the translation may follow the syntax of the source text, producing syntactic calques, and (2) the influence of the source text may also manifest itself as a distorted frequency of certain patterns in the target language (with the translator using either foreign syntax or native syntax but with non-native proportions between various structures, cf. Taylor 2008). The problem is evident in the case of OHG, where one needs to choose between translations and poetry when creating a study corpus. Axel, presenting her research material for the study of OHG, refers to the translational character of the surviving material as “a big drawback for linguistic research” (Axel 2007: 3). Smith admits that “it is a problem to find corpora which are unquestionably representative of the language in terms of word order” (1971: 43). To make matters worse, the longest and theoretically best source for the study of OHG, namely the Tatian Gospel Harmony, is frequently criticised as a slavish translation and was even called an interlinear gloss, without any value for syntactic investigations, by the most famous editor of the text, Sievers (1892). This 14.  It is very likely that the unnaturalness of language in biblical translations was also an asset for the readers/hearers in medieval times – it gave the text a mysterious flavour and was different from the everyday, low-prestige form of the vernacular. The more literal approach to translation survives even today. For example, the wording of Roman Catholic rite was changed in many languages as recently as during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. The changes in English were considerable and involved bringing the text closer to the Latin version e.g. the response And with your spirit instead of And with you (Latin Et cum spiritu tuo).

15

16

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

traditional scepticism concerning Tatian is questioned by Petrova & Solf (2009), who claim that the text “systematically implements different means of expression, therefore displaying some genuine features constitutive for OHG” (Petrova & Solf 2009: 124). One needs to bear in mind that Tatian is not a word for word, but a line by line translation, in which each line in OHG is supposed to translate the corresponding line in the Latin original. Since the manuscript is bilingual and contains the source text, it is possible to assess the influence of Latin on the OHG used in the text.15 Isidor, on the other hand, is commonly praised as a free translation displaying high quality (Robinson 1997; Lippert 1974; Schlachter 2009). However, its independence is sometimes used against it since we are never certain if the translator modified the original Latin structure because it was required by the OHG grammar, or for stylistic reasons, while such deviations in Tatian are so rare that when they happen “it must be because of German grammar” (Gering 1876 quoted in Robinson 1997: 3). One thing is certain, though: all translations may be influenced by the element order of the source. The degree of influence can vary, but it is always present and analysing OHG on the basis of translated material without reference to the Latin source texts (as Davis & Bernhardt 2002 and Smith 1971 do) is a risky undertaking. As stated before, OE records comprise poetry, and both original and translated prose, so a linguist interested in OE syntax naturally chooses one of the original compositions. However, this means that we limit our knowledge of OE syntax to the structures used by anonymous scribes writing the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Ælfric, whose homilies are by far the most commonly studied material when it comes to syntactic analyses (cf. fn. 12). OE translations, though, even biblical ones, are commonly praised by experts who claim that the language used in them is “idiomatic and correct, with hardly any influence of the original, at least in the matters of order” (Reszkiewicz 1966: 22). What is more, the two most important figures involved in the process of translating Latin into OE, i.e. Alfred the Great and Ælfric, wrote many prefaces to their works, explaining their aims, their reasons for undertaking the task and problems they encountered, setting out their own ‘translation theory’ (Stanton 2002), which proves that the whole translation process was very conscious. It seems reasonably safe to study OE word order on the basis of such high-quality translations. This, however, is not commonly done because scholars usually assume that a native composition provides better material for a syntactic study. The alternative approach is to treat all OE texts, original and translated, as 15.  Petrova & Solf (2009) decided to analyse only “syntactically deviating structures from Tatian”, assuming, after Dittmer & Dittmer (1998), that all modifications to the original word order must be examples of authentic OHG syntax. Details concerning this methodology are discussed in Chapter 2.



Chapter 1.  Studying the element order of Old Germanic languages

equally good, and provide examples from both categories in the discussions of OE syntax (this is done regularly, e.g. in Fischer et al. 2000). As noted in the earlier sections of this chapter, comparative syntactic studies of Old Germanic languages are rare, and the most plausible reason for this apparent neglect is the problem of finding comparable material. We strongly believe that it is time to actively use and compare the available sources in a reasonable and reliable way. It would certainly be groundbreaking if someone unexpectedly found a chronicle written by a native speaker of OHG, a long, original prose composition, free from Latin influences and ready for comparison with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but such a miracle is unlikely to happen. Translations may be a second choice for a syntactic study, but they are not necessarily a bad choice. Our study aims to show that, with proper methodology, they can be a valuable source of information on both OE and OHG element order, and they can be used to establish some common ground between the languages, making comparative studies of their syntax more reliable.

17

Chapter 2

How to study element order in translated texts

2.1 Methodologies of other studies of OE and OHG translations Different linguists have taken varying approaches in the study of Old Germanic translations. Some scholars working on OHG simply assume that, since the language was not recorded in the form of original prose compositions, translations should be treated just like original prose. The quality of the source texts is either strongly defended (e.g. Tatian in Davis & Bernhardt 2002, Isidor in Robinson 1997) or the authors admit that the text is an imperfect source, but accept that there is nothing of better quality available (Smith 1971). In contrast, in studies on OE syntax, translations are either not used at all, or the scholars assume that the quality1 of the translations into OE is above discussion and that there is no need to justify their choice. Thus, they use both original and translated texts without differentiating between them (e.g in Fischer et al. 2000 and Ringe & Taylor 2014).2 In general, in studies devoted to OE, all clauses from translated texts are analysed, without any reference to the source texts, and the authors do not provide the equivalent Latin clause in examples used for analysis (something which is consistently done by most OHG scholars e.g. Axel 2007 or Schlachter 2009). Therefore, it seems that the quality of the translations is sometimes taken for granted. A completely different approach has recently gained popularity in the study of OHG: only clauses which somehow deviate from the source text order are analysed, while those following the Latin order are ignored. Such an approach is used by Dittmer & Dittmer (1998) and, more recently, by Petrova & Solf (2009), who treat structures that follow the original word order of Latin as uninformative from the point of view of syntactic investigations and base their analysis on “syntactically 1.  Throughout this chapter we talk of ‘quality of translation’, ‘bad translation’ or ‘praising’ and ‘criticising translations’, all the time valuing independence from the source text as positive. This approach is generally (and implicitly) assumed in the works on OE and OHG translations and we should not remove this element from the discussion. However, approaches to translations vary even today and faithfulness to the source text can also be seen as positive (cf. fn. 14 in Chapter 1). 2.  A notable exception is a study by Taylor (2008), who analysed prepositional phrases with pronominal complements in biblical and non-biblical OE translations, considering source text order as one of her variables.

20 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

deviating structures of Tatian” (Petrova & Solf 2009: 126). The syntactic deviations comprise both changes within the boundaries of syntactic constituents (especially interesting cases are those when OHG lacks a one-word equivalent of a Latin synthetic form and needs to use a complex verb phrase to render e.g. a Latin passive verb), and changes affecting the order of clause constituents, the latter being the main focus of the study. The following types of ‘deviations’ are mentioned by the authors: 1) ‘insertion’: a constituent missing in the original is inserted in the translation (usually a subject or object pronoun, an adverbial or a finite verb form), 2) ‘transposition’: the order of constituents is different compared to the original (the authors consider the shifts of finite verbs as most important), or 3) ‘free translations’: the translation differs from the original “in providing an idiomatic, more precise expression, or it even provides supplementary information” (Petrova & Solf 2009: 127). If the deviations involve the occasional violation of the ‘line by line’ translational principle typical of Tatian, they are considered as even more authentic examples of native OHG syntax. The authors admit that there are also doubtful cases and “single divergences do not always guarantee the authenticity of the whole sentence” (Petrova & Solf 2009: 131), e.g. in the case of absolute structures, which the authors regard as foreign. It is assumed that changes in the word order of such structures do not necessarily tell us much about OHG syntax.3 The authors claim to have found “several thousands of relevant instances” of various syntactic deviations (Petrova & Solf 2009: 126). The decision to focus on deviating structures certainly allows the authors to minimise the potential influence of Latin on their study corpus, but it also has its drawbacks. First and foremost, the fact that a source clause is rendered word for word in a translation does not automatically mean that the target text violates native rules of syntax. If we analyse the first verse from the Book of Genesis in three different languages:



(1) In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram (Latin) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (English) Am Anfang schuf Gott Himmel und Erde4 (German)

3.  Not all linguists agree that absolute constructions in Old Germanic languages are examples of foreign syntax, but the traditional view, e.g. in Scheler (1961), is the same as that of Petrova & Solf (2009). However, dative absolutes appear both in OE and OHG when the original does not have an absolute construction in the corresponding fragment. Also, the Latin ablative absolute is not consistently translated with the dative absolute: a prepositional phrase or a finite clause can be used instead (cf. Mitchell 1985: 928–929 and Timofeeva 2010: 33–36 for OE and Bauer 2000: 275 for OHG). Absolute constructions found in our corpus are discussed in Chapter 8. 4.  The Modern English translation comes from the Authorised Version of the Bible, the Modern German version – from Luther’s translation. Luther translated the Old Testament from Hebrew, not from the Latin Vulgate, but the order of elements in this fragment is the same in Hebrew and



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

we can easily observe that Latin (just like the original Hebrew) and Modern German show exactly the same order of words and phrases in the clause. This, however, does not mean that the German clause is ungrammatical or does not follow native German syntax. The German clause is probably much more natural (showing the V-2 phenomenon) than the Latin modelled on Hebrew. Thus, what we can see here is an example of a systematically impeccable literal translation. We are not trying to argue that such instances are more valuable sources of information than the deviating structures. What we want to emphasise, however, is that among all the clauses that follow the word or element order of the source language, there are also instances of authentic native syntax. Dittmer & Dittmer (1998) and the followers of their approach claim that it is impossible to decide whether such clauses represent native or foreign syntax, so it is safer to ignore them altogether. Creating a study corpus which contains only syntactically deviating structures will minimise the Latin influence. However, it may lead to results which do not illustrate native proportions between various element order patterns since some part of the potentially native data is bound to be disregarded. Another potential problem with ‘deviating examples’ is that they are not always completely free of Latin influence. A certain OHG/OE clause may contain an inserted subject or object pronoun, but still the relative order or position of some other clause constituents may be the same as in the Latin source text. For example, when a Latin clause et responsum acceperat ab Spiritu Sancto is translated into OE as & he andsware fram þam halegan gaste onfeng (Lk 2:26), the position of the pronominal subject is independent of the Latin, but the pre-verbal placement of the object follows the source text order. Therefore, a ‘deviation’ may still be potentially influenced by the source text, while a clause translated word for word may follow native rules of the target text syntax. Note, in this context, that one of our analytic chapters takes into account the position of subject and verb relative to each other (Chapter 3), while another is concerned with the relative positioning of verb and object (Chapter 7). The clause deviates from the source text in the former analysis (no overt subject in the Latin gives no model), but in the latter, it follows the source text (same relative order). In short, how we approach the relation to Latin depends on the object of research; this issue is analysed in detail in section 2.7 of this chapter. In our study, we analyse all clauses found in the translations selected for analysis, i.e. we do not focus on the deviating examples only, which makes our approach different from Dittmer & Dittmer (1998), but we do keep clauses that copy the source text element order separate from those that modify it. In each of the analytic chapters (3-7), we devote a separate section to a meticulous analysis of the in the Latin translation, with an adverbial at the beginning, followed by the verb and the subject, with the object phrase at the end of the whole clause: ‫אׁשית‬ ִ ‫ּב ֵר‬,ְ ‫ֹלהים ָּב ָרא‬ ִ ‫א‬,ֱ ‫ה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם ֵאת‬,ַ ‫ה ָא ֶרץ וְ ֵאת‬.ָ

21

22

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

issue with reference to the relevant types of clauses, and produce a catalogue of relations to the source text for each element order pattern in each translation. We also believe that if a given structure can be found among ‘deviations’, its presence among ‘copies’ is very often a syntactic coincidence rather than an instance of thoughtless calquing. In this way, we hope to expand the number of clauses that can be relatively safely treated as examples of native OE or OHG syntax. 2.2 The ENHIGLA parallel corpus With these methodological considerations in mind, we set out to develop an electronic database of parallel texts which would allow a systematic investigation of element order patterns in the translation samples selected for this study. As its full name suggests, the Old English-High German-Latin (EnHiGLa) database contains two parallel corpora: 1) a Latin – Old English corpus comprising ca. 12 000 clauses and a Latin – Old High German corpus with ca. 9 000 clauses. In this section, we briefly describe the general design of these parallel corpora. As noted by McEnery & Wilson (2001:70), the basic idea behind a parallel corpusof texts dates back to medieval ‘polyglot’ bibles, which contained side-by-side versions of the same text in different languages. Parallel corpora as they are used in corpus linguistics can be defined as collections of two or more language versions of the same texts which are aligned at one or more structural levels, such as paragraphs, sentences, clauses or words. That means that sentences, clauses or words in the source texts are explicitly linked to their target equivalents (wherever they can be identified) by means of special annotation or formal database relations. Typically, a parallel corpus contains alignments of source texts with their translations, although it is not uncommon to find alignments of different translations of the same source texts in some parallel corpora. The alignment of texts in parallel corpora can be added manually by corpus developers or derived from segment alignments previously committed to automatic translation memories. Automatic methods of aligning original sentences (Brown et al. 1991) or words (Tiedemann 2004) are also used to annotate large parallel corpora. Given the main purpose served by the EnHiGLa database as a source of data on element order in OE and OHG translations, we chose the syntactic clause as the basic level of text alignment. As explained in more detail below, the texts were first segmented into clauses and phrases. All clauses and phrases were annotated (the details are described in section 2.4). Finally, the annotated clauses were manually aligned and stored in a relational database. Fig. 1 below shows an example of phrase-level annotation and clause-level alignment in the OE – Latin parallel corpus.



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

Phrase

Type

On angynne

ADV

gesceop

V

God

SB

Finite verb Main Declarative

heofonan & eorðan. DO Phrase

Type

Se eorðe

SB

soðlice

ADV

wæs

V

idel & æmti,

COMP

Phrase

Type

In principio

ADV

creavit

V

Deus

SB

caelum et terram

DO

Clause attributes

Clause attributes Finite verb Main Declarative

Phrase

Type

tera

SB

autem

ADV

erat

V

inanis et vacua

COMP

Clause attributes Finite verb Main Declarative

Clause attributes Finite verb Main Declarative

Figure 1.  The Latin source texts are segmented and annotated at the level of phrases and aligned with their OE (and OHG) equivalents at the level of clauses.

By storing the data in a relational database, it is possible to search the annotated parallel corpora using syntactic attributes and alignment relations as filtering and aggregation criteria. For example, a single query can be run against the model illustrated above to count and retrieve all occurrences of OE main declarative clauses with an initial adverbial phrase and subject-verb inversion which are aligned with Latin clauses following exactly the same order of constituents (or any other). On the whole, there are many corpora of OE which are useful for all sorts of linguistic investigations. For example, the Dictionary of Old English Corpus (Healey 2004), which contains at least one copy of every OE text, or the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (Rissanen et al. 1991), which is diachronic in nature. There are also annotated corpora, i.e. the York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of OE Prose (Taylor et al. 2003), and the York-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Poetry (Pintzuk & Plug 2002). However, to the best of our knowledge, EnHiGLa is the only parallel corpus comprising OE translated texts aligned to their Latin sources .5 The only other OE resource which may be regarded as similar in this respect is the Bosworth-Toller dictionary (Bosworth 2010), which often provides Latin equivalents of OE words and phrases. In the case of OHG, which is recorded mostly in the form of translated texts, existing corpora usually contain Latin source texts together with their OHG translations. This is related to the fact that the source texts are usually known and some manuscripts are actually bilingual (e.g. Tatian). As a result, the source texts of all the main OHG translations can be found e.g. in the TITUS text database (Gippert et al. 2003). Nonetheless, electronic resources available for OHG are relatively limited, and there is no tool comparable to the parsed YCOE corpus, which is available 5.  EnHiGLa is available under an open-source license at http://pelcra.pl/enhigla.

23

24

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

for the study of OE. The Kali-Korpus (Diewald 2003) contains some OHG texts which are partly annotated (for verbal categories). The Latin versions of these texts are available only if the original manuscript was bilingual, and are not directly aligned to the target text. In addition, there is the large Deutsch Diachron Digital project, though in 2015 it was still work in progress, and its full version was not available when we were conducting our research. Thus, our small corpus enabled us to conduct a comparative analysis which would not have been possible on the basis of the existing resources. 2.3 Texts included in the corpus The records available for the study of OE and OHG were presented in section 1.3. For both languages under investigation, it is possible to choose from a number of translated texts, which do not form a homogenous group and belong to different categories when it comes to the general character of the text, its dependence on the original and the date of composition. The first division that can be made is between secular and religious translations. Both OE and OHG have some biblical translations in their records. In the case of OHG, it is the Tatian Gospel Harmony (the Old Testament was not translated into OHG, though some quotations from the Book of Genesis are included in the Isidor translation). OE biblical translations include the Lindisfarne Gospels, which are an interlinear gloss, the West Saxon Gospels and the Heptateuch, which was partly translated by Ælfric. Many of the remaining translations are also religious in character (e.g. OHG Isidor, which is a catholic religious treatise, or OE Cura Pastoralis, which is Pope Gregory’s treatise regarding the duties of clergymen), though there are some which may be called secular (e.g. Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum or some of the classic literature translated by Notker into OHG). Another feature that needs to be taken into account is the relative freedom of the translations. Though not all of the available OE and OHG translations have been studied in detail, some of them have been analysed thoroughly and, as a result, they are considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’ translations, the criterium being the degree of independence from the original.6 As far as OE is concerned, the situation is rather uncontroversial: translations are usually praised (except for glosses, which 6.  It should be noted, though, that there are various ways of assessing ‘the degree of (in)dependence’, mainly lexical and syntactic. From the point of view of this study, syntactic closeness is naturally the more interesting feature. Our approach to Latin source texts is explained in section 2.7.



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

are naturally ignored in syntactic studies, though even in glosses the occasional departures from the original word order, i.e. ‘syntactic deviations’, could be an interesting object of study as e.g. in Glaser 2000); some translations are said to follow the original relatively closely, e.g. Bede, with others modifying the content much more often, e.g. Orosius. In the case of Bede, which is a very well studied text, occasional criticism can be encountered: it is for example noted that “[t]he choices involved in translating Bede’s Latin into OE ... manifest themselves in somewhat artificial structures” (Rowley 2011: 9). On the other hand, the translator introduced some noticeable changes, substantially modifying the Latin preface and omitting certain events from Bede’s lengthy narration, letters relating to the English Church and much information concerning the physical world (St-Jacques 1983: 86). The OE Bede belongs to the so-called Alfredian translations, i.e. translations ordered and partly created by King Alfred the Great himself. Alfred was certainly aware of the tension between staying faithful to the original and creating meaningful OE texts. In his preface to the translation of Pastoral Care, which was actually a letter to Anglo-Saxon bishops sent to them together with the translation, Alfred says that he has translated hwilum word be worde, hwilum andgit of andgite (‘sometimes word for word, sometimes sense for sense’), a strategy which “combines the priorities of preservation, textual devotion, and linguistic performance” (Stanton 2002: 82). It seems that Alfred tried to imitate and interpret at the same time, with the translation sometimes following the original closely, and sometimes paraphrasing it. The OE Bede belongs to the Alfredian translation tradition, which suggests that (some) syntactic calques may be present in this text. However, quoting clauses from Bede as examples of OE syntax is a common practice. It is even more common to treat Ælfric, an Anglo-Saxon writer and translator, as an unquestioned master of OE, and thus, his works, including translations, are commonly appreciated (cf. Marsden 1991). However, biblical translations are by nature close to the original since the Bible, as the holy text, should not be tampered with and translators naturally tried to limit their interventions to an absolute minimum (Jerome himself recommended the ‘word for word’ strategy here, as mentioned in section 1.5). Ælfric addresses that concern directly, explaining his strategy, like Alfred, in the preface to his work, this time – to the translation of the Book of Genesis. [...] we ne durron na mare awritan on Englisc þonne þæt Leden hæfþ, ne þa endebirdnisse awendan, butan þam anum þæt þæt Leden and þæt Englisc nabbað na ane wisan on þære spræce fadunge. Æfre se ðe awent oþþe se þe tæcþ of Ledene on Englisc, æfre he sceal gefadian hit swa þæt þæt Englisc hæbbe his agene wisan, elles hit biþ swiþe gedwolsum to rædenne þam þe þæs Ledenes wisan ne can.  (Marsden 2004: 128)

25

26 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

[we dare not write in English anything that is not in the Latin, nor change the order, except in one case: when Latin and English do not have a single way in the arrangement of the language. Always, he who translates or interprets from Latin to English should order elements so that English keeps its own manner, or it will be very confusing to read for those who do not know Latin.]

This ‘manifesto’ of translation practice allows us to believe that Ælfric used all his undoubted skills when translating the Bible. Thus, the language of the translation is supposed to be idiomatic OE. Nonetheless, no matter how great a figure Ælfric was, the question is whether we can simply trust his word or if it would be advisable to check to what extent he managed to keep it. The OHG translations, on the other hand, even though they are studied much more often, or perhaps exactly because they are studied much more often, are criticised much more eagerly. The Tatian translation generally does not enjoy a good reputation. Its quality has been criticised by many scholars, including the first editor, Sievers (1892). Robinson stated that it should be treated as “clearly a translation much inferior to the Isidor” (Robinson 1997: 3), while Lippert expressed his straightforward criticism, calling the text “ein schlechtes Stück Übersetzungsarbeit” [a bad piece of translation] (Lippert 1974: 192). However, there are others, who claim that its quality is uneven and some parts “show a certain independence and skill” (Bostock 1976: 164). Recently, the Tatian translation has come back into grace and has been analysed with the use of the methodology based on syntactic deviations (cf. Dittmer & Dittmer 1998; Petrova & Solf 2009; Petrova 2009; see also section 2.1). The text is no longer treated as a gloss since it was not translated word for word, but line by line, with occasional violations of the line boundary. On the whole, it seems that the translation technique employed in Tatian lies somewhere between glossing and free translation (Fleischer et al. 2008). On the other hand, Isidor and Notker’s translations are commonly regarded as works of good quality. Isidor is praised just as often as Tatian is criticised, probably because the quality of the two translations is often juxtaposed and the comparison is definitely not in Tatian’s favour (cf. Lippert 1974; Robinson 1997). Nonetheless, Isidor is considerably shorter than Tatian, so it is difficult to argue that its analysis can provide full coverage of OHG syntax. Finally, there are translations created by Notker, who could probably be called the OHG Ælfric. One needs to keep in mind, though, that Notker’s works come from late OHG (early 11th century). Therefore, it would be controversial to base our entire knowledge of OHG syntax on his texts, which were written at the very end of the period, especially considering the fact that earlier records exist, though their quality is less certain. The date of composition should also be considered when selecting materials for analysis: OE and OHG follow similar periodisation, which means that the time



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

span between the oldest and youngest translations written in these languages is ca. 300 years. The first important (i.e. long and free) OE translations are basically parts of the Early West Saxon records, i.e. translations created in the age of King Alfred. Some of them, as mentioned earlier, are believed to have been written by the king personally, and they all come from the late 9th century (these comprise Bede, Orosius, Cura Pastoralis, Boethius). The earliest OHG translations include Tatian and Isidor, which were written in the 8th century. OE translations, created in the 10th and 11th centuries, are mainly biblical (the West-Saxon Gospels, the Heptateuch), while in the OHG records, there is a gap between Tatian and Isidor (8th century), and then Notker (11th century). When selecting sources for the present study, we considered all of the factors mentioned above, working on the following assumptions: 1. glosses should not be included in our corpus since the relative number of syntactic calques and syntactic departures will make it impossible to draw any general conclusions regarding the languages in question; 2. very free translations, which involve extensive paraphrasing and numerous commentaries, should not be included either since they would require a separate methodological approach (it would be very difficult to analyse them together with close translations using a parallel corpus since some parts of these texts could not be aligned to the original); 3. both biblical and non-biblical translations should be included in the corpus (since Bible translation has its own specificity, samples of other texts are also needed for some general conclusions to be drawn); 4. both early and late translations should be included in the corpus. As a result, the following texts were selected for analysis: Table 1.  Texts included in the study corpus. OE texts Title

Type

Time of composition

Length of sample

No. of No. of target clauses source clauses

Heptateuch

biblical

Late 10th cent.

25 chapters of Book of Genesis

1767

2355

Bede

secular

Late 9th cent.

Book 1 and four chapters of Book 2

2101

2343

West Saxon Gospels

biblical

Late 10th cent.

10 chapters of Gospel of Luke

2092

1955

27

28

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations OHG texts Title

Type

Time of composition

Length of sample

Tatian

biblical

8th cent.

74 chapters

3029

2980

Isidor

religious

8th cent.

whole text

  825

  902

whole text

  298

  265

Physiologus secular Early 11th cent.

No. of No. of target clauses source clauses

In the case of OE, we included two biblical translations and Bede, the latter of which, apart from some known omissions, is said to follow the original rather closely. The reason for this decision is that if such translations, which seem most prone to source text influence, retain syntactic independence, others are probably at least equally reliable. For the analysis of OHG, we selected the two ‘classics’, i.e. Tatian and Isidor, and decided not to include Notker because of the extremely free, practically periphrastic character of his translations. Since late OHG translations should be represented in the corpus, we opted for Physiologus, which is a short late OHG translation of the Latin Book of Beasts. Throughout the book, the text samples included in the database are referred to as Genesis, Bede and Luke (for OE) and Tatian, Isidor and Physiologus (for OHG). As has been shown, the existing translations cannot be grouped according to one variable only (i.e. it is impossible to compare an early OE biblical translation with an early OHG biblical translation since the only OHG gospel translation comes from the 8th century and all the OE biblical translations were created in the late 10th century). Thus, since we wanted to create a diversified corpus, in the course of the study we treat all the translations separately and only later identify the structures or phenomena that the OE and OHG texts have in common. In this way, we want to avoid treating text-specific elements as representative of the whole linguistic system. The OHG materials used in our study (both source and target texts) are taken from the online TITUS text database (the editions are listed in the reference section). The OE target texts come from The Dictionary of Old English Corpus on CD-ROM. The electronic Latin version of Bede’s chronicle was downloaded from The Latin Library . Unfortunately, selecting the Latin source texts of our two OE biblical translations was less straightforward because the exact originals which were the basis for the translations remain unknown. As Marsden (1995: 396) admits, “for the first twenty-nine chapters of Genesis no Latin witness survives at all.” Thus, it is not certain which manuscript of the Latin Vulgate is to be regarded as closest to the perished source text. The situation is similar with the West Saxon Gospels since “the Latin archetype from which the West Saxon Gospels were translated is lost” (Petersen 1994: 256). Therefore, for the purposes of this project, we have chosen



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

the version of the Vulgate available in the electronic form as no principled choice of manuscript seems to be possible. However, Marsden (1995:406) notes that “all surviving Vulgate manuscripts have the greater proportion of their text in common, if minor variations (many of them orthographical) are ignored.” Examples used throughout the book all follow the same layout. The clause is divided into its constituents and the constituents are glossed. The last line of the example provides the translation of the whole clause (or sequence of clauses). For the biblical texts (Genesis, Luke and Tatian), the modern translations are based on the Latin Vulgate Bible with Douay-Rheims English translation and the translations of the examples from Bede are based on Miller (1999). It must be noted that sometimes the official Modern English translation does not correspond well to the OE, OHG or Latin clause under scrutiny. In such cases, modifications were introduced into the translation so that it matches the analysed example. If a given OE/OHG clause has no obvious source, the translation is provided by the authors. For Isidor and Physiologus, where no official translations of the OHG texts are available, all the modern translations were provided by the authors. Every example includes a reference to the text sample (Genesis, Bede, Luke, Tatian, Isidor or Physiologus) and the clause number as assigned in the EnHiGLa database, which is freely available, and thus, every example shown in the book can be easily checked in a larger context at . If examples are bilingual (an OE/OHG clause and its Latin equivalent), the language is indicated in the text descriptor (e.g. OE Luke vs. Lat. Luke) and the number for both the source and target clause is provided (there being a separate numbering for the source and the target texts). 2.4 Syntactic annotation of clauses and clause elements All the source and target texts included in our corpus are syntactically annotated on the clause level and phrase (clause element) level; the same set of labels is used for all three languages included in the corpus. The first stage of the annotation procedure was the segmentation of texts into clauses. We do not distinguish the level of sentence (as opposed to clause) in the annotation scheme since we are interested in the ordering of elements within a clause. We define clauses as syntactic units centred around a verb (a finite verb form for finite clauses and a non-finite form for non-finite clauses). In (2), we have a finite clause followed by a non-finite clause.

29

30

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(2) & bletsode hi, | ðus cweðende (Genesis, cl. 71–72) and blessed them | thus saying   ‘And he blessed them, saying’  (Gen 1:22)

However, not all non-finite verbal forms were annotated as constituting separate clauses. This happened in two clearly defined situations; the first case involved participles used attributively, modifying nouns within a noun phrase, and thus having a clearly adjectival character: (3) Sprytte seo eorðe growende gærs & sæd wyrcende produce-SBJ the earth growing grass and seed producing   (Genesis, cl. 34–35) ‘Let the earth bring forth the growing grass and seed producing’  (Gen 1:11)

Therefore, in (3), the participle growende was interpreted as a part of the direct object phrase, modifying the noun gærs. However, if the participle had an object of its own (or it was modified in any other way, e.g. with an adverbial), it was treated as a separate clause, as sæd wyrcende in (3), where the participle wyrcende governs its own direct object sæd. The other case in which non-finite verb forms were not annotated as nonfinite clauses was in complex verb phrases. A combination of an auxiliary verb and a participle or infinitive was annotated as a complex verb phrase belonging to the same finite clause. This includes passive-like structures (to be/become + past participle), progressive-like structures (to be/become + present participle), perfectlike structures (to have + past participle) and preterite-present verbs followed by an infinitive.7 Other combinations of verbs followed by infinitives were annotated as two separate clauses. (4) Min Drihten God, hu mæg ic witan þæt ic hyt agan my lord God how may I know that I it own sceal (Genesis, cl. 945–946) shall   ‘My Lord God, how may I know that I shall own it?’  (Gen 15:8) (5) Nu ic æne began to sprecenne to minum Drihtne (Genesis, cl. 1219–1220) now I alone began to speak to my Lord   ‘Now that I alone have begun to speak to my lord’  (Gen 18:27)

As a result, (4) contains two clauses, each with a complex verb phrase, whereas (5) is divided into a finite and a non-finite clause. 7.  Even though in OE the preterite-present verbs were much closer to other lexical verbs both in function and meaning, they are often referred to as ‘modal auxiliary verbs’ or ‘OE modals’ (cf. Hogg 2002, Lowrey 2012). A similar interpretation is offered for OHG (Salmons 2012).



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

In addition, there are cases in which a finite verb undergoes elision, i.e. a given sequence of phrases is logically a separate clause though the verb is absent, usually to avoid repetition. Such cases are also annotated as separate clauses and marked as elliptical. We distinguish between two types of such verbal elisions: a verbal element can be completely absent, as in (6), or there is only a non-finite form present but it clearly belongs to the finite verb mentioned in the previous clause, as in (7), so it cannot be interpreted as a non-finite clause. (6) ðreohund fæðma bið se arc on lenge, & fiftig fæðma on bræde, & three hundred cubits is the ark on length and fifty cubits on breadth and ðritig on heahnysse (Genesis, cl. 486- 488) thirty on height   ‘The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits: the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits’  (Gen 5:15)

(7) þæt wif wearð þa gelæht & gelædd the woman was then taken and led to þam cyninge (Genesis, cl. 791–792) to the king   ‘Then the woman was taken and led to the king’  (Gen 12:15)

In the two clauses shown in (6), there are no verbal elements present (both the verb bið and the subject se arc were not repeated in the subsequent clauses). Thus, they were analysed and annotated as ‘full verbal elision’ in the corpus. On the other hand, in the clause & gelædd to þam cyninge, shown in (7), elision also takes place (the finite verb wearð is not repeated) though there is still a non-finite form present (gelædd). Such cases were never annotated as non-finite clauses, but rather as ‘finite verb elisions’. In short, every clause present in the corpus was annotated as finite, non-finite, with full verbal elision or finite verb elision. Another feature which was annotated on the clause level was the division of clauses into main and subordinate. Since the sentence level was not considered in the corpus structure, as explained above, both simple sentences and main clauses in complex sentence structures were annotated as ‘main’. Since all non-finite clauses are by nature dependent, only finite clauses and clauses with verbal elisions could function as main. Three traditional subtypes of main clauses were distinguished according to their function: declarative, interrogative and imperative, illustrated by (8), (9) and (10) respectively. (8) On angynne gesceop God heofonan & eorðan (Genesis, cl. 1) in beginning created God heaven and earth   ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’  (Gen 1:1)

31

32

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(9) Adam, hwær eart ðu (Genesis, cl. 237) Adam where are you-SG   ‘Adam, where are you?’  (Gen 3:9) (10) Wyrc ðe nu ane arc of aheawenum bordum (Genesis, cl. 481) make you-SG .DAT now one ark of plane boards   ‘Now make an ark of plane boards’  (Gen 6:14)

Naturally, clauses belonging to the various subtypes demonstrate different element order patterns, so they had to be annotated for the corpus to fulfil its functions. In the category of subordinate clauses, three subtypes are also distinguished, namely nominal,8 relative9 and adverbial. Examples (11), (12) and (13) illustrate these categories. (11) God geseah ða ðæt hit god wæs (Genesis, cl. 8–9) God saw then that it good was   ‘Then God saw that it was good’  (Gen 1:4) (12) & God geseah ealle ða ðingc ðe he geworhte (Genesis, cl. 109–110) and God saw all the things that he made   ‘And God saw all the things that he had made’  (Gen 1:31) (13) Ða sende God slæp on Adam, & ða ða he slep, ða genam he an rib then sent God sleep on Adam and when he slept then took he one rib of his sidan (Genesis, cl. 180- 182) of his side   ‘Then God sent sleep upon Adam and when he was asleep, he took one of his ribs’  (Gen 2:21)

In our analysis, the function of the subordinate clause in relation to the main clause was the decisive factor for the categorisation:10 since the clause ðæt hit god wæs in (11) functions as the direct object of the verb geseah, the clause is annotated as nominal; since the clause ðe he geworhte in (12) gives additional information about the direct object ealle ða ðingc, the clause is annotated as relative; since the clause ða ða he slep in (13) specifies the time when the event mentioned in the following clause took place, the clause is annotated as adverbial. The same 8.  Alternative names for such clauses are noun clauses, complement clauses or argument clauses; throughout this study, the term ‘nominal clause’ is consistently used. 9.  Also referred to as adjective or adjectival clauses in other studies. 10.  Such a classification system, simple and based on function, proved very effective in the annotation process, though of course it is also possible to divide clauses, especially subordinate ones, in other ways (e.g. on the basis of the introductory conjunction, pronoun or particle).



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

procedure was applied for the categorisation of non-finite clauses, as illustrated in (14), (15) and (16). (14) Nis na god ðisum men ana to wunigenne (Genesis, cl. 169–170) not-is not good this man-DAT alone to live   ‘It is not good for man to live alone’  (Gen 2:18) (15) & seo eorðe forð teah growende wyrta & sæd berende and the earth forth brought growing plants and seed bearing be hyre cynne (Genesis, cl. 39–40) by their kind   ‘And the earth brought forth growing plants, and such as bears seed according to its kind’  (Gen 1: 12) (16) & bebead him ðus cweðende (Genesis, cl. 162–163) and ordered him thus saying   ‘And he commanded him, saying’  (Gen 2:16)

The clause ana to wunigenne in (14) serves as the subject of the verb nis in the previous clause and is thus annotated as non-finite nominal; the clause & sæd berende be hyre cynne in (15) gives additional information about the plants (wyrta) mentioned in the previous clause and it is coordinated with growende, which modifies the same word, so it is classified as non-finite relative; ðus cweðende in (16) describes the manner in which God expressed his command and is therefore classified as non-finite adverbial. The annotation of the data on the phrase level involved classifying clause elements according to their function in the clause. The most frequent phrase types were naturally subject, finite verb, non-finite verb,11 direct object, adverbial and phrases introducing clauses, i.e. coordinating or subordinating conjunctions, relative pronouns and relative particles, as illustrated in (17). (17) Eornostlice ða wæron fulfremode truly then were perfected adverbial adverbial finite verb non-finite verb heofonas & eorðe & eall heora frætewung. & God ða heavens and earth and all their ornament and God then direct object conjunction subject adverbial 11.  The verb phrase is the only element of the clause which we analyse from the word order rather than element order point of view, i.e. when a clause contains a complex verb phrase, the finite verb and the non-finite verb form are annotated separately. This is necessary for our analysis because the position of the finite form in relation to the subject is interesting from the point of view of the V-2 phenomenon discussed in Chapter 3, whereas the position of the non-finite form (i.e. the lexical verb) in relation to the object is crucial for the patterns described in Chapter 7.

33

34

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

gefylde on ðone seofoðan dæg his weorc ðe he completed on the seventh day his work that he finite verb adverbial direct object relative particle subject worhte (Genesis, cl. 113–115) made finite verb   ‘So the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made’  (Gen 2: 1–2)

Other phrase types included in the annotation scheme are: indirect object, prepositional object, vocative, interjection, interrogative pronoun and reflexive. Most of the labels mentioned so far were rather straightforward and easy to apply during the annotation procedure, though subjects and objects need to be elaborated upon. Naturally, subjects are usually nouns, noun phrases or pronouns in the nominative case, but it was necessary to extend the use of the term ‘subject’ to certain non-nominative notional subjects, found in absolute and accusative plus infinitive constructions, as in (18) and (19). (18) gefylledum dagum (Luke, cl. 345) fulfilled-DAT days-DAT   ‘When the days were fulfilled’  (Lk 2:43) (19) & het hyne locian to heofonum (Genesis, cl. 931–932) and ordered he-ACC look to heaven   ‘And ordered him to look up to heaven’  (Gen 15:5)

Such subjects were annotated according to their case as dative, accusative or ablative subjects. Direct objects and indirect objects were differentiated on the basis of case, the most practical criterion; objects in the accusative were annotated as direct, whereas objects in all other cases were annotated as indirect. We classified prepositional phrases that were arguments of the predicates as prepositional objects, although, as is well known, the division between arguments and adjuncts is not always clear. One exception to this rule is constituted by phrases with spatial referrence which are arguments of their predicates. Since they are identical in form to genuine adverbials of place and they are do not always include prepositions, we decided to annotate all of them as adverbials and not prepositional objects. The last issue that calls for some discussion is the differentiation between subordinating conjunctions and adverbials. It is a well-known fact that in OE and OHG some of the subordinating conjunctions introducing adverbial clauses have the same form as adverbs, which are often initial constituents in main clauses, cf. examples (1)-(4) in Chapter 5. Therefore, the classification of a word like OE þa or



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

OHG tho is related to the classification of the whole clause as main or subordinate. Since we are interested in researching element order, we cannot rely on order to make decisions about clause type as this would make the analysis circular; the distinction between main and subordinate clauses should not be seen as a derivative of element order, but be based on independently established criteria. This problem is well known in the literature on OE (e.g. Mitchell 1985: §3922). With reference to OHG, the problem is addressed by Näf (1979: 229), who in fact dismisses it, claiming that Latin and letter case provide a sufficient basis for distinguishing between the clause types. A recent proposal by Kida (2014) is completely different: clauses of uncertain status are classified as ‘para-hypotactic’ and taken twice into the calculations: as main clauses and again as subordinate clauses. The author claims that such “ambivalent clauses” belong to both types at the same time (Kida 2014: 59), which he associates with “the intermediate stage in the transition of a language from parataxis to hypotaxis, or vice versa” (Kida 2014: 57). We chose not to multiply categories and stayed with the traditional two-fold division into main and subordinate clauses. Putting theoretical issues aside, the problem did not turn out to be so severe in the actual annotation practice. In most cases, we could reach a decision on the basis of the context and, in particular, information structure. In general, main clauses typically introduce new events, while subordinate clauses refer to background information (cf. Lambrecht 1994: 236). Let us illustrate this element of our analysis with an example. (20) Maria (…) grete Elizabeth. Ða wæs geworden þa Mary greeted Elizabeth then was happened when Elizabeth gehyrde Marian gretinge, þa gefagnude þæt cild Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting then moved the child on hyre innoðe (Luke, cl. 121, 124–127) in her womb   ‘Mary (…) saluted Elizabeth. And it came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant moved in her womb’  (Lk 1, 39–41).

At the end of (20), there are three clauses with þa, but their classification is not problematic. The first of them is quite unambiguously a main clause because there is no superordinate clause we could link it with. The other two clauses with þa form a correlative construction. The first of these (with gehyrde) must be subordinate because otherwise the passage would not make much sense. This clause refers to old information to provide a reference for the last of the clauses, which gives new information.

35

36

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

2.5 The alignment procedure The next step after the syntactic annotation was the alignment of source and target texts on the clause level. Equivalent clauses were linked and five types of equivalence were established: a) one to one, b) one to many, c) many to one, d) zero to one, e) one to zero. The first case is the typical situation in which a given Latin clause has a single equivalent in the translation, as in (21): (21) Se eorðe soðlice wæs idel & æmti (OE Genesis, cl. 2) the earth truly was void and empty   terra autem erat inanis et vacua (Lat. Genesis, cl. 2) earth moreover was void and empty   ‘The earth was void and empty’  (Gen 1:2)

Sometimes, though, a single Latin clause is translated with two or more OE/OHG clauses, as in (22). (22) ða behydde Adam hine, fram Godes gesihðe then hid Adam REFL from God’s face on middan ðam treowe neorxnanwonges. & his wif eac swa among the tree of paradise and his wife also so dyde (OE Genesis, cl. 233–234) did   ‘Then Adam hid himself from the face of God among the trees of Paradise, and his wife did the same’  (Gen 3:8) abscondit se Adam et uxor eius a facie Domini Dei hid REFL Adam and wife his from face of Lord God in medio ligni paradise (Lat. Genesis, cl. 231) amid tree of paradise   ‘Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, among the trees of Paradise’  (Gen 3:8)

It is also possible for two or more Latin clauses to be rendered as a single clause in the translation, as in (23). (23) seo ymbgæð eall ðæra Silhearwena land (OE Genesis, cl. 154) this-F encircles all the Ethiopian land   ‘It encircles all the Ethiopian land’  (Gen 2:13) ipse est qui circuit this-M is which encircles omnem terram Aethiopiae (Lat. Genesis, cl. 155–156) all land of Ethiopia   ‘This is the one which encircles all the land of Ethiopia’  (Gen 2:13)



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

In addition, sometimes clauses are inserted in the translation to provide additional information which is not explicit in the original, as in (24). (24) Ðære oðre ea nama is Gion; seo is eac gehaten the other river’s name is Gehon this-F is also called Nilus (OE Genesis, cl. 152–153) Nile   ‘The other river’s name is Gehon; it is also called Nile’ et nomen fluvio secundo Geon (Lat. Genesis, cl.154) and name of river second Gehon   ‘And the name of the second river is Gehon’  (Gen 2:13)

In other cases, some of the information from the original is omitted in the translation, as in (25). (25) ða wearð Cain ungemetlice yrre. & Drihten cwæð then became Cain immoderately angry and Lord said to him (OE Genesis, cl. 314–315) to him   ‘Then Cain was very angry and the Lord said to him’  (Gen 4:5–6) iratusque est Cain vehementer et concidit vultus eius dixitque angry-and is Cain exceedingly and fell expression his said-and Dominus ad eum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 312–314) Lord to him   ‘And Cain was exceedingly angry, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said to him’  (Gen 4:5–6)

Sometimes, longer passages were omitted by the translators. For instance, in the Heptateuch, long genealogies (with simple repetitive structure in the source text) are missing from the OE translation. 2.6 Classification of element order patterns Every element order study makes use of a set of labels to group clauses according to the order of their constituents. Such labels are often applied differently depending on the study and in general may be somewhat confusing by themselves (cf. section 1.2). Therefore, we have decided to specify each element order label used in the book, with an explanation of how they are used and with relevant examples. This is especially important because labels useful for various groups of clauses and syntactic phenomena are not the same. The theoretical background and details concerning the procedure of applying the labels can be found in the

37

38

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

individual analytical chapters. This section serves as an overview of labels used throughout the book, emphasising and justifying the most important methodological decisions taken. Throughout most of the chapters, it is the position of the finite verb that serves as the criterion defining the element order labels. In the analysis of non-conjunct main clauses (Chapters 3 and 4), the focus is on the V-2 phenomenon and the V-1 order. Thus, it is necessary to differentiate between the first and the second position of the verb in the clause, as illustrated with (26) and (27). If the finite verb is placed in a later position in the clause, all such clauses are classified as V-late, as shown in (28) and (29); this includes orderings with the verb at the very end of the clause, as in (29). In the case of non-conjunct main clauses, the V-final and other V-late orderings are not (and need not be) automatically distinguished since the analysis aims to show how many clauses follow the V-1, the V-2 or some other pattern. Consequently, short clauses consisting of two constituents, as in (30), are classified simply as V-2 in Chapter 3 because their order is consistent with the V-2 rule, though naturally they are at the same time V-final. There are no short clauses consisting of one element only in Chapters 3 and 4 since only clauses with an overt subject and a finite verb are considered in the analysis, hence the minimal number of constituents is two. (26) Bið ðonne se min renboga on ðam wolcnum (Genesis, cl. 639–647) is then the my rainbow on the clouds   ‘Then my rainbow shall be in the clouds’  (Gen 9:16) (27) Eft clypode se engel Abraham (Genesis, cl. 1622) again called the angel Abraham   ‘The angel called Abraham again’  (Gen 22:15) (28) Witodlice hi hæfdon tigelan for stan (Genesis, cl. 697) truly they had bricks for stone   ‘Truly they had bricks instead of stones’  (Gen 11:3) (29) Ða on þam ehteoþan dæge hig comon (Luke, cl. 169) then on the eighth day they came   ‘Then on the eighth day they came’  (Lk 1:59) (30) Ða fisceras eodun (OE Luke, cl. 641) the fishermen went   ‘The fishermen were gone’  (Lk 5:2)

The labels introduced so far are based on the position of the finite verb relative to the beginning of the clause. However, we have also mentioned the V-final order, which is oriented on the end of the clause. This point of reference is the most



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

relevant one for subordinate clauses (Chapter 5). Therefore, the position of the verb is calculated in the reverse way for these clauses. When the verb is the last constituent of a subordinate clause, the clause is classified as V-final, irrespective of its length, i.e. this includes both long and short clauses consisting of only one or two constituents apart from the introductory conjunction / pronoun / particle, as in (31) and (32), which are both labelled as V-final. When the finite verb is followed by one extraposed constituent only, the clause is classified as V-prefinal, again irrespective of its length, as in (33) and (34). When the finite verb is followed by more than one constituent, the clause is classified as V-early. This includes clauses that have the verb in the second position much like main clauses, as in (35), but also some other orderings found in particularly long clauses, as in (36), which is labelled as V-early (because there are two constituents following the finite verb) even though the verb is found in the fourth position after the introductory þæt.12 (31) þæt ðu samod ne losige (Genesis, cl. 1323) that you-SG also not perish   ‘So that you also do not perish’  (Gen 19:17) (32) Thanne thu fastes (OHG Tatian, cl. 1469) when you-SG fast   ‘When you fast’  (Mt 6:17) (33) Nibu druhtin uns firleazssi samun (OHG Isidor, cl. 644) if not lord us leaves seed   ‘Unless the lord leaves us seed’ (34) þæt ge cyrron to minum huse (Genesis, cl. 1273) that you-PL returned to my house   ‘That you returned to my house’  (Gen 11:2) (35) for þan ðe he ys eac of ðinum sæde (OE Genesis, cl. 1495) because he is also of your seed   ‘Because he is also of your seed’  (Gen 21:13) (36) þæt he hine sylfne on geweald sealde swylcere frecednysse that he himself into power gave great peril-GEN for þam cuman (Bede, cl. 213) for the stranger   ‘That he exposed himself to great danger for the stranger’

The label V-2 (as well as V-1) is not used in Chapter 5 at all. Clauses in which the finite verb is found in the second position after the the introductory conjunction / 12.  Naturally, conjunctions are never counted as clause elements in this study.

39

40 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

pronoun / particle can be classified as V-final, as in (32), as V-prefinal, as in (34), or as V-early, as in (36), depending on the number of constituents following the verb: none, as in (32), only one, as in (34), or more than one, as in (36). As a result, we have two sets of labels for different types of clauses, one counting positions from the beginning and the other from the end of the clause. In Chapter 6, the order of conjunct clauses is analysed. They required the most detailed set of labels because they are, on the one hand, main clauses (which would suggest using the same labels as in Chapter 3 and 4), but, on the other hand, in OE they are supposed to demonstrate a tendency for the V-final order, characteristic of subordinate clauses (thus requiring the same labels as in Chapter 5). What is more, clauses without an overt subject were also included in the analysis. As a result, the set of labels is modelled on those used in Chapters 3 and 4, but with important modifications. The V-1 order is defined as in Chapter 4, with a distinction between clauses with and without overt subjects as in (37) and (38) respectively. The V-2 order is defined as in Chapter 3, but it also includes clauses without an overt subject, so both groups of clauses are distinguished, as in (39) and (40). Short clauses consisting of a conjunction followed by the finite verb, as in (41), as well as clauses which are at the same time V-2 and V-final, as in (42), are treated as ambiguous and counted separately.13 Finally, clauses in which the verb takes a later position are labelled as V-late (as in Chapter 3) but the number of V-final clauses (V-final being a sub-category of V-late) is also indicated in the analysis because it is important for testing the hypothesis that OE conjunct clauses are V-final. Thus, both (43) and (44) are labelled as V-late, but (44) is at the same time distinguished as V-final. (37) inti quedent thanne (Tatian cl. 2664) and said-3PL then   ‘And then they said’  (Mt 11:18) (Tatian cl. 964) (38) Inti quad hér ín and said he them   ‘And he said to them’  (Mt 4:19) (39) & Abram underfeng fela sceatta for hyre (Genesis, cl. 793) and Abram got many goods for her   ‘And Abram received many goods for her’  (Gen 12:16) (40) & ðus cwæð be him (Genesis, cl. 432) and thus said-3SG about him   ‘And he said thus about him’  (Gen 5:29) 13.  In Chapter 3 they would be classified as V-2, in Chapter 5 as V-final.



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

(41) & wundrodon (Luke cl. 63) and wondered-3PL   ‘And they wondered’  (Lk 1:21) (42) & þus cwæð (Bede, cl. 1853) And thus said   ‘And he said thus’ (43) & heo sona fleah ut to ðam westene (Genesis, cl. 1000) and she soon fled out to the desert   ‘And she soon escaped to the desert’  (Gen 16:6) (44) & ðær on anum scræfe ealle ðreo wunedon (Genesis, cl. 1355) and there in a cave all three lived   ‘And all three of them lived there in a cave’  (Gen 19:30)

The labels used in Chapter 7, devoted to the relative position of the verb and the object, are very straightforward: a clause is classified as VO when the object follows the lexical verb and as OV when it precedes the lexical verb (irrespective of any intervening elements that may be placed between the verb and the object). Chapter 8 does not introduce any new labels, reversing the perspective from which element order patterns are analysed, i.e. it investigates how various patterns found in Latin source clauses are translated in the individual OE/OHG texts. 2.7 Assessing dependence on the Latin source text In every analytical chapter devoted to a particular element order phenomenon, there is a separate section entitled ‘Relation to Latin’, in which the degree of syntactic correspondence between the source and the target texts is analysed. In each chapter, clauses are divided broadly into the ones ‘following Latin’ and the ones ‘modifying Latin’. However, the exact set of criteria used as the basis for this division varies from chapter to chapter because different elements are crucial for different analysed structures. Naturally, when a clause is a word for word copy of the original, it is always classified as following Latin, and when a clause is a complete paraphrase of the original, or if there is no clear source for the target clause, it is always classified as modifying Latin. Yet, for the great number of clauses that fall in between these extremes, it was necessary to develop a clear method of division into these two groups. The method applied in a given chapter is always described at the beginning of the relevant section. Nonetheless, here, we explain our approach to the source text in order to show the basic logic behind all the decisions taken and described in the individual chapters since this logic is always the same,

41

42

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

and the differences in our approach stem from the differences between the analysed syntactic phenomena. One of the main differences between the chapters is our treatment of clauses with null subjects in Latin. Such clauses are very frequent in all the source texts, which is natural given the fact that Latin is a pro-drop language, while OE and OHG are not. Addition of an overt subject in the OE/OHG clause is treated as a minor change in Chapters 5 and 6 (where the position of the verb is of crucial importance and the position of other clause constituents is less relevant) and clauses representing this pattern are classified as following Latin. However, in Chapters 3 and 4, where the position of the subject plays an important role in the analysis, the addition of an overt subject is classified as a modification of the source text, as explained below. There are two chapters (3 and 7) in which the relative order of two clause constituents is decisive: in Chapter 3, it is the subject and the finite verb, while in Chapter 7, it is the object and its lexical verb. In both chapters, a clause is classified as following Latin if: a. both clause elements under investigation are present in the source clause, and b. the relative order of these two clause elements is the same, irrespective of any intervening elements. Thus, both (45) and (46) are counted as clauses following Latin as the order of the verb and the object is the same, even though in (46) the translator rearranged the order of other clause elements. (45) & he wæs bicniende him (OE Luke, cl. 69) and he was making signs them   et ipse erat innuens illis (Lat. Luke, cl. 70) and he was making signs them   ‘And he was making signs to them’  (Lk 1:22)

(46) daz imo niman geuolgen nemag (OHG Phys., cl. 78) that him no one follow not-may   (Lat. Phys., cl. 84) atque nullus venatorum eum capere potest but non hunters-GEN him catch can   ‘So that no hunter could follow him’

If one of the investigated elements is absent from the source clause (i.e. it was provided by the translator without a clear Latin model), the clause is treated as a modification of the original order, as in (47), where the translator had a choice as to whether to add the subject pronoun in the pre-verbal or the post-verbal position, which is crucial in our analysis of S-V inversion related to the V-2 phenomenon.



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

(47) Æfter ðam he gestrynde suna & dohtra (OE Genesis, cl. 399) after that he begot sons and daughters   et genuit filios et filias (Lat. Genesis, cl. 420) and begot sons and daughters   ‘Afterwards he begot sons and daughters’  (Gen 5:10)

Naturally, when the relative position of the investigated elements is changed by the translator, the clause is also counted as a modification, as in (48). (48) Soðlice Abram & Nachor wifodon (OE Genesis, cl. 722) truly Abram and Nachor married   duxerunt autem Abram et Nahor uxores (Lat. Genesis, cl. 874) married then Abram and Nachor wives   ‘Truly Abram and Nachor married wives’  (Gen 11:29)

The method changes slightly in Chapter 4, where the position of the finite verb is analysed, but only clauses with overt subjects are taken into consideration in the analysis. We have decided to treat all clauses with a clause-initial verb form (not necessarily finite, which makes Chapter 4 different from Chapter 3) and an overt subject in Latin as following the original, as in (49) and (50). (49) Bið ðonne se min renboga on ðam wolcnum (OE Genesis, cl. 647) is then the my rainbow on the clouds   eritque arcus in nubibus (Lat. Genesis, cl. 705) is-FUT-and bow in clouds   ‘Then my rainbow shall be in the clouds’  (Gen 9:16) (50) Uuard tho giheilit thie kneht in thero ziti (OHG Tatian, cl. 1984) was then healed the servant in this time   Et sanatus est puer in illa hora (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1945) and healed is servant in this hour   ‘Then the servant was healed at the same hour’  (Mt 8:13)

Thus, similarly to Chapter 3, the addition of an overt subject by the translator is considered as a modification of the original order, and, naturally, a change from a V-2 or V-late order into V-1 is treated as the most serious intervention of the translator, as illustrated with (51) and (52) respectively. (51) Gab dhuo got moysi euua (OHG Isidor, cl. 563) gave then god moses-DAT law   Dedit legem per moysen (Lat. Isidor, cl. 647) gave-3SG law through Moses   ‘Then God gave law to Moses’

43

44 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(52) Uuarun thô hirta in thero lantskeffi uuahhante (OHG Tatian, cl. 357) were then shepherds in the country watching   Et pastores erant in regione eadem vigilantes (Lat. Tatian, cl. 357) and shepherds were in region the same watching   ‘And there were in the same country shepherds watching’  (Lk 2:8)

The approach to Latin changes in Chapters 5 and 6; the constituent whose position is of crucial importance in both chapters is the finite verb. Therefore, a clause is counted as following Latin when: a. it copies the original order, or b. it follows the original order but the subject is added by the translator, while the position of the finite verb is retained, as in (53), or c. the position of the finite verb is retained but other clause constituents are omitted, added or rearranged, as enim in (54), or d. when a non-finite clause is translated as finite, but the verb position is the same, as in (55). (53) & he færlice hrymð (OE Luke, cl. 1690) and he suddenly cried   et subito clamat (Lat. Luke, cl. 1811) and suddenly cried   ‘And he suddenly cried out’  (Lk 9:39)

(54) Se þe wyle hys sawle hale gedon (OE Luke, cl. 1625) he who will his soul saved make   qui enim voluerit animam suam salvam facere (Lat. Luke, cl. 1744) who for wants soul his saved make   ‘Who wants to save his soul’  (Lk 9:24)



(55) & him mycel wæl ongeslogan (OE Bede, cl. 442) and them great casualties inflicted   ‘And inflicted great casualties on them’ magnam eorum multitudinem sternens (Lat. Bede, cl. 641) great their multitude scattering   ‘Scattering a lot of them’

In short, in Chapters 5 and 6, all the cases of ‘slight modifications’ without consequences for the verb position are treated as close enough to the original to classify them as following Latin. For a clause to be treated as a modification, it has to modify the position of the finite verb, as in (56), or paraphrase the original clause, as in (57).



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

(56) Ða hig to him comun (OE Luke, cl. 1116) when they to him came   cum autem venissent ad eum viri (Lat. Luke, cl. 1200) when also came to him men   ‘When they came to him’  (Lk 7:20)

(57) forþam þe hig næfdon rum on cumena huse (OE Luke, cl. 241) because they not-had room in guest house   quia non erat eis locus in diversorio (Lat. Luke, cl. 246) because not was them room in inn   ‘Because there was no room in the inn’  (Lk 2:7)



One of the main differences, which has already been emphasised at the beginning of this section, is that the addition of an overt subject by the translator, which is very common in all the translations under investigation, is considered as a modification in Chapters 3 and 4, while in Chapters 5 and 6 such a change is considered slight enough to be counted together with clauses following Latin. What is more, as our approach to Latin is dynamic, not only do we use different detailed criteria depending on the chapter, but the same clause may be classified as following Latin in one chapter and as modifying Latin in another one. (58) shows an example of such a situation. The clause God bebead us is analysed in Chapter 3 as it follows the V-2 order, and this is a clear modification of the Latin V-1 clause. On the other hand, the position of the pronominal object is the same in the source and target clause and therefore, in Chapter 7, the same clause is counted as following Latin. (58) & of ðæs treowes wæstme þe is on middan neorxnawange, God bebead and of the tree’s fruit that is on middle paradise’s God ordered us ... (OE Genesis, cl. 205–206) us   de fructu vero ligni quod est in medio paradisi praecepit nobis of fruit truly tree’s that is in middle paradise’s ordered us Deus ... (Lat. Genesis, cl. 206–207) God   ‘And of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of Paradise...’  (Gen 3:3)

In this way, our approach differs from Petrova & Solf (2009), where a clause is permanently classified as a ‘deviating example’ if any intervention of the translator in the original structure is visible. In our study, the labels ‘following Latin’ and ‘modifying Latin’ are not permanent; their use depends on the analysed structure.

45

46 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

2.8 Quantifying complex element order patterns The annotation of the parallel corpus developed for the purposes of this study was designed with the underlying assumption that a particular element order pattern found in OE and OHG translations of Latin texts may be determined by a number of syntactic and lexical variables, such as: – the element order of the Latin source clauses, e.g. object-verb/verb-object, subject-verb/verb-subject/no subject, – OE and OHG clause type, i.e. main/subordinate and subtype, e.g. declarative/ imperative, – OE and OHG subject and object type, i.e. nominal/pronominal, – types and lexical realisations of certain phrases, e.g. clause-initial adverbial þa and adverbial soþlice in OE clauses. Such an analysis can be particularly complex whenever these variables seem to interact with each other. Throughout this study, we begin the analysis of these factors with a detailed inspection of the syntactically annotated parallel corpus data. However, in many cases, a comprehensive analysis of all the combinations of feature counts can be a truly overwhelming task. Since deriving such complex rules from annotated data may be error-prone, we apply statistical modelling which helps us validate our manually constructed models of OE and OHG element order patterns. More specifically, in Chapters 3–7 of this book, we compare our descriptions of OE and OHG element order patterns with automatically generated decision trees – a well-known family of data mining algorithms used to solve complex Table 2.  OHG element order patterns in Tatian and their associated feature vectors. Latin order

OHG object type

OHG clause type

OHG order

no object

nominal

subordinate

OV

no object

nominal

main

VO

no object

nominal

main

VO

no object

nominal

subordinate

VO

no object

nominal

subordinate

VO

no object

pronominal

subordinate

OV

no object

pronominal

main

OV

no object

pronominal

main

OV

no object

pronominal

subordinate

OV

no object

pronominal

subordinate

OV



Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts

classification problems. To illustrate the use of decision trees in our analysis, let us consider a sample of ten annotated clauses extracted from Tatian. Each row in Table 2 corresponds to a single aligned clause. The first three columns of the table contain the values of three categorical variables (i.e. Latin order, OHG object type and OHG clause type) which are associated with a given OHG element order pattern listed in the last column of the table. In other words, each row specifies the conditions under which a particular OHG element order pattern was observed. For example, the first (subordinate) OHG clause in this sample, which follows the OV pattern, has a nominal object and it happens to be a translation of an objectless Latin clause. Such labelled vectors of features are also known as ‘learning instances’. latin_order no o clause_type subordinate object_type

vo (35.0/6.0)

NOM PRON vo (3.0/1.0)

main

ov (20.0)

object_type

no v

ov

vo

ov (186.0/40.0)

NOM PRON vo (5.0)

ov (3.0/1.0)

xxx clause_type

vo (7.0/1.0)

subordinate

main

object_type NOM

vo (130.0/11.0)

vo (522.0/13.0)

PRON

ov (78.0/22.0)

Figure 2.  A decision tree modelling the choice between OV and VO in Tatian.

Figure 2 shows the result of feeding the 989 learning instances from the aligned Latin – OHG Tatian text available in our corpus into the Weka implementation (Hall et al. 2009) of the C4.5 decision tree algorithm (Quinlan 1993). The tree consists of a number of branching rules which can be used to predict the element order of OHG clauses in Tatian. What makes decision trees useful when compared to some other learning algorithms is the fact that they produce rules that are easy to interpret. For example, the most important prediction about the element order of a clause in the OHG translation of Tatian is related to the element order of its corresponding Latin clause. As can be seen in the decision tree label, only 40 of the 186 OV Latin clauses do not have OV equivalents in the OHG translations, i.e. in the label 186.0/40.0, the number before the slash shows the total number of Latin clauses following the OV pattern (186 altogether), while the number after the slash corresponds to the number of exceptions to the identified rule (40 out of 186 Latin OV clauses are not OV in OHG). Some of the other rules in the tree are more sophisticated as they reflect the complexity of the factors involved. For instance, as can be seen in Figure  1, as many as 509 (out of 522, minus 13

47

48 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

exceptions) main OHG clauses which were translations of VO clauses copied the Latin element order, i.e. clause type and Latin order are the only factors necessary to model the choice between OV and VO in main clauses. When predicting the element order of subordinate OHG clauses which are equivalents of Latin VO clauses, it also seems useful to distinguish between the types of their objects because the tree splits into pronominal and nominal objects when predicting the element order pattern. During the generation of the model, some of the learning instances are excluded from the training phase and used as test data to evaluate the resulting decision tree classifier, i.e. to assess how well it can predict the actual distribution of patterns. Automatic classifiers are usually described in terms of their precision and recall rates. Precision shows what portion of a given pattern was classified correctly (it is the number of correct results divided by the number of all results classified as the given pattern), while recall shows what portion of a given pattern was identified by the classifier in the data (it is the number of correct results divided by the number of all results that should have been returned). The average precision of predicting OHG element order patterns obtained for the abovementioned decision tree was about 90%. This means that about 90% of the instances recognised by the classifier as OHG OV clauses on the basis of the Latin clause element order, OHG object type and OHG clause type were in fact OV clauses, whereas 10% of clauses which the classifier recognised as OV were in fact VO. Similar precision rates were obtained for the OHG VO clauses. The recall rates observed for both of the predicted classes were similar. In other words, the classifier successfully recognised about 90% of all the instances of OHG OV and VO clauses in the entire data set. Table 3.  A confusion matrix for the Tatian decision tree. Predicted OV

Predicted VO

Actual OV

222 (correct predictions )

   34 (incorrect predictions)

Actual VO

   65 (incorrect predictions)

668 (correct predictions )

The overall performance of the decision tree model obtained for our data is summarised in the ‘confusion matrix’ shown in Table  3. The rules provided by the decision tree obtained for the Tatian data classify VO element order patterns more reliably than OV ones (222 OV clauses were successfully classified as OV and 668 VO clauses were successfully classified as VO). For technical reasons, simplified graphic versions of all the decision trees are used throughout the book, i.e. the tree shown in Figure 2 would have the following form:

Chapter 2.  How to study element order in translated texts 49





Latin_order = no O | clause_type = SUBORDINATE | | object_type = NOMINAL: VO (3.0/1.0) | | object_type = PRONOMINAL: OV (20.0) | clause_type = MAIN: VO (35.0/6.0) Latin_order = no V | object_type = NOMINAL: VO (5.0) | object_type = PRONOMINAL: OV (3.0/1.0) Latin_order = OV: OV (186.0/40.0) Latin_order = VO | clause_type = SUBORDINATE | | object_type = NOMINAL: VO (130.0/11.0) | | object_type = PRONOMINAL: OV (78.0/22.0) | clause_type = MAIN: VO (522.0/13.0) Latin_order = other: VO (7.0/1.0)

In addition to using decision tree models, we also apply a generalised linear regression model to some of the data sets extracted from our corpus. We use a simple additive linear regression equation in order to predict the categorical dependent variable. The purpose of using this well-known technique is to validate the statistical significance of the observed frequencies of the above-mentioned variables as predictors of OE and OHG element order patterns. Lastly, at some points in the detailed analysis, we resort to chi-square tests to confirm or disprove the statistical significance of the observed patterns in the data (Preacher 2001). 2.9 Summary In our study, we use corpus methodology as described in all the sections of this chapter. With the help of our parallel corpus, we aim to identify areas in which the element order of the selected OE and OHG translations is influenced by the source text syntax. In this way, we want to determine Latin-independent syntactic features of the texts, which will constitute a reliable basis for a comparison of OE and OHG element order. In the next 5 chapters of this book, we apply our methodology to the analysis of element order patterns in various clause types. In Chapter 8, the full potential of our corpus becomes visible. Thanks to the syntactic annotation of the source texts, we are able to analyse strategies employed in the translation of various Latin element order patterns and constructions, and compare them between the texts. Throughout the book, each translation is analysed separately and features which can be generalised to OE and OHG are identified in the final chapter. In this way, we filter out text-specific features (some of them are

50

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

manifestations of different directions of Latin influence but there are also Latinindependent stylistic peculiarities which can be observed in single texts only).

Chapter 3

The V-second phenomenon

3.1 The V-2 phenomenon: overview 3.1.1

Introduction

Today, English is the only Germanic language which does not follow the V-2 rule, according to which the finite verb is supposed to occupy the second position in a clause irrespective of the type of the first element. The V-2 order does very often correspond with the S-V order, which is the norm for Modern English.1 However, in a language with the V-2 constraint, as stated e.g. by Lass (1994: 224), “if anything other than the subject occupies the initial slot in main clause, the verb moves to second position”, and the resulting x-V-S order is traditionally called ‘subject-verb inversion’. Modern English shows only remnants of this phenomenon in constituent questions; possibly in quotative inversion, which “may derive from the verb-second construction” (Los 2009: 110, emphasis ours); and in declarative clauses with initial negatives, initial only, so and such, which demonstrate subject-auxiliary inversion. S-V inversion after other initial constituents disappeared from English in the Middle English period, but it was retained in its sister languages, thus making English an exception within the Germanic family of languages. Nonetheless, it is not true that all Modern Germanic languages except English apply the V-2 rule in the same way. The main difference is that in some languages, called asymmetric Verb-Second (e.g. German), the V-2 phenomenon is restricted to main clauses with most subordinate clauses following the V-final pattern, whereas in others, called symmetric Verb-Second (e.g. Yiddish and Icelandic), the V-2 order is also attested more or less freely in subordinate clauses (Fischer et al. 2000: 113).2

1.  cf. Ich bin aus Deutschland vs. I am from Britain. In both cases the clauses are V-2 and S-V, but this does not prove that both Modern English and Modern German follow the V-2 constraint. 2.  The V-2 phenomenon is also found in subordinate clauses in Frisian and Danish but its use is restricted to clauses introduced by the so-called ‘bridge verbs’ (used for quoting a statement) and, as a result, these two languages are also classified as asymmetric (Fischer et al. 2000: 112; Kroch & Taylor 1997: 298).

52

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

3.1.2

The V-2 phenomenon in OE

The status of the V-2 constraint in OE is not entirely clear. Scholars generally agree that the V-2 order is predominant in main clauses (as opposed to V-final in subordinate clauses), but departures from this general pattern are relatively common. Lass mentions “a tendency towards the V-2 order” rather than a fully-fledged V-2 constraint and claims that this tendency “was never as strict in OE as it later became in the other Germanic languages” (Lass 1994: 225). One of the contexts in which a main declarative clause does not follow the V-2 constraint is in the use of the V-1 order (discussed in Chapter 4). Another type of ‘violation’ are clauses demonstrating the x-S-V pattern without S-V inversion, which is an integral part of the V-2 phenomenon. The frequency of such uninverted subjects is much higher when the subject is a personal pronoun, whereas nominal subjects tend to be inverted far more regularly, as confirmed by numerous studies (e.g. Fischer et al. 2000). Mitchell (1985: §3922) claims that the frequency of S-V inversion is highest in clauses introduced by certain adverbs. The difference in the rate of S-V inversion among various adverbs has been noted by numerous scholars. Allen (1995) states that þa “nearly always causes S-V inversion” and admits that “[t]he fact that some adverbs regularly cause VS order, while others do not, makes it considerably more difficult to account for subject-verb inversion in terms of a verb-second target” (Allen 1995: 36). The adverbs which are mentioned by different authors in the context of exceptionally common S-V inversion are: þa (Mitchell 1985; Allen 1995; Traugott 1992; Quirk & Wrenn 1955; Fischer et al. 2000; van Kemenade 1987), ne3 (Quirk & Wrenn 1955; Fischer et al. 2000), þar (Mitchell 1985; Quirk & Wrenn 1955),4 and þonne (Mitchell 1985). Haeberli (2002) mentions also nu, though Kroch & Taylor (1997) report that narrative sequencing adverbs like nu are not consistent; they sometimes behave like þa, and sometimes like ordinary adverbs. The special status of þa needs to be mentioned here. In formal accounts, þa (and sometimes also þonne, nu and swa as in Ringe & Taylor 2014) is classified as an operator (together with ne and wh-words) which “attracts the verb to a higher position in the syntactic structure than non-operators” (Westergaard 2009: 75), and in this way its almost completely consistent inverting influence is explained (cf. van Kemenade 1987; Kroch & Taylor 1997; Haeberli 2002). It has been proven 3.  As discussed later in Chapter 4, in some studies ne is interpreted as a clitic attached to the finite verb, and then such clauses are treated as V-1, and sometimes as a negative adverb triggering S-V inversion, and then such clauses are interpreted as V-2. 4.  Quirk & Wrenn observed that þær causes S-V inversion especially frequently when used expletively and not with its full local meaning (1955: 92–93).



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

that þa causes regular inversion of both pronominal and nominal subjects (like ne and wh-words), but Allen expresses her reservations towards such an analysis and claims that a convincing explanation is needed to prove why þa, but not other adverbs, should function as an ‘operator’ (Allen 1995: 36, fn. 16). The main problem is that þa, ne and wh-words do not form a natural class, and thus it is not clear why these words (and not any other) should display the same syntactic behaviour. So far, we have said that the rate of S-V inversion in OE depends on subject type (with different though not entirely consistent behaviour of pronominal and nominal subjects) and that some clause-initial elements, namely certain simple adverbs, tend to cause inversion more regularly than others. The last group of constituents that should be mentioned here are those which consistently fail to trigger inversion, i.e. sentence adverbs such as witodlice and soþlice (both meaning ‘truly’), as stated by Fischer (2010: 206). This is parallel to the behaviour of phrases such as coordinating conjunctions, interjections or vocatives, which stand outside of the clause and thus do not influence its structure. In the same context, Kroch & Taylor (1997) mention adverbs functioning as ‘scene setters’, i.e. temporal adverbs such as her or ðy ylcan geare. What is more, as noted by Haeberli, in OE we can observe “a systematic absence of inversion after clause-initial subordinate clauses”, which is a regular phenomenon in “true V2 languages” (Haeberli 2007:17). An interesting observation was made by Barret, who noticed that “adverbs that imply connection with the preceding sentence are more frequently followed by inversion” (1953:15); according to his study, temporal and local adverbs very consistently trigger S-V inversion and only pronominal subjects follow the V-late pattern. A similar conclusion can be found in Bean (1983), who analysed the element order of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Her study was diachronic in nature and she noted that the usage of the V-S order after þa is the only pattern that remains relatively fixed throughout the Chronicle and “its usage is not affected by considerations of topicality” (1983: 136), whereas other adverbials (her and ðy ylcan geare) gradually assume the same property and become markers of new, consecutive/sequential action, and thus induce S-V inversion. The high frequency of the V-2 phenomenon noted by Bean in her study should, in her opinion, be “attributed to the nature of the Chronicle as the recording of a sequence of events”. Thus, V-2 is seen as a narrative device rather than the effect of obligatory grammar rules. Some diachronic and idiosyncratic variation is also suggested by Traugott, who claims that “it is possible to rank the frequency with which the formula Adverb + Verb + Subject occurs from author to author and period to period” (1972: 108) and notes that in late OE þa still typically occurs with x-V-S pattern but other adverbs “rarely do so” (ibid.). More recently, the OE V-2 phenomenon has started to be associated with information structure; Bech (2001b) reports that

53

54

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

pragmatic factors are responsible for the use of the x-S-V pattern and the degree of inversion may be linked to the information value of subjects. 3.1.3

The V-2 phenomenon in OHG

Davis & Bernhardt (2002) suggest that the V-2 phenomenon in OE and OHG is very similar. According to their study, in main clauses introduced by an adverbial, 71% of OE and 75% of OHG clauses follow the x-V-S pattern. They also note that in both cases, sentence adverbs tend not to cause inversion, whereas light subjects tend to precede the verb, though this tendency is much more certain in the case of OE. As the authors admit: For the OHG material the position is less clear, though it may be suggested that there may be a correlation between the weight of the subject and its position relative to the verb, with pronominal subjects tending to precede the verb and heavy subjects tending to follow the verb. A larger sample than that afforded by the Tatian would be needed to prove this hypothesis – it would accord with the observed position in OE. (Davis & Bernhardt 2002: 57)

The suggestion that the behaviour of pronouns in V-2 structures is the same in OE and OHG has not been confirmed by other sources. Robinson states rather vaguely that “it is not the case that personal pronouns must appear before the verb, but they may” (Robinson 1997: 17), whereas Axel notes that “while in OE pronouns always occur postfinitely in sentences where certain types of operators ... or adverbs have been fronted, whereas they occur prefinitely in sentences where other types of elements have been fronted ... [a]t least in Isidor and in Tatian, the pronouns5 occur in prefinite position or in postfinite position in both syntactic environments” (Axel 2007: 251); the proportion of inverted to non-inverted personal pronouns in Isidor is roughly 1 to 1 (Axel 2007: 242). Her analysis also shows that in late OHG texts, pronouns almost always occur post-verbally (2007: 240), i.e. they get inverted just like nominal subjects. According to Robinson (1997: 8–19), most OHG main clauses contain a finite verb preceded by only one constituent (usually the subject but others include objects, predicate adjectives and nouns, and adverbials). In his analysis, clauses introduced by a coordinating conjunction or an interjection are not considered as exceptions to this rule since these elements do not constitute a part of the clause, standing outside its structure. Among the ‘variations on verb-second’, as Robinson calls them, he enumerates V-late patterns containing:

5.  Subject as well as object pronouns.



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

(a) an intervening negative particle/adverb ni between the first element and the finite verb6 endi mina miltnissa ni nimu ih ab imu7 and my compassion not take I from him ‘And I will not take my compassion from him’ (b) an intervening personal pronoun Erino portun ih firchnussu bronze portals I destroy ‘I destroy bronze portals’ (c) an intervening light adverb such as so, dhar, dhanne, sus and nu Seegi got dhar sprah behold God there spoke ‘Behold, God spoke there’ (d) an intervening sentence adverb Dhiu chiuuisso ist bighin gotes suns that certainly is origin God’s son’s ‘That certainly is the origin of the Son of God’

In addition, Axel (2007: 202) mentions the use of the V-late order after dislocated topics (which Robinson counts together with clauses introduced by coordinating conjunctions and interjections) and after two adverbial expressions (mainly prepositional phrases and adverbial phrases) that seem to “form a unit”. Axel also states that the order of clauses in Tatian may be influenced by the line break (Tatian being a line by line translation) and in this text “violations of verb-second are a word-order phenomenon which can often be argued to be due to the special layout” (Axel 2007: 203). She adds iu to the list of light/short adverbs provided by Robinson (1997) and emphasises the fact that “[i]n most examples with verb-third order triggered by a short adverb, the adverb is not used in its original meaning, but functions as some kind of discourse connective” (Axel 2007: 224). She also highlights the Latin factor, stating that “[t]here are practically no examples where deviations from verb-second are triggered by two (non-pronominal) arguments occurring in prefinite position independent of or contrary to the Latin. This marks a clear contrast to OE, where XP – full-subject – Vfin sequences occur quite frequently” (Axel 2007: 227). Tomaselli (1991: 95–96) assumes that such patterns found in OHG are most probably the results of foreign syntax and claims that only the x-S-V pattern with pronominal subjects is an example of original OHG syntax. 6.  The presence of such clauses seems to be another argument for treating ni/ne as clitics and not independent adverbs, and this is the approach followed throughout the book. 7.  The examples are taken from Robinson (1997) but phrase by phrase glosses are provided by the authors; finite verbs are underlined, subjects are shown in bold.

55

56

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

3.1.4

Summary: factors influencing the V-2 phenomenon in OE and OHG

The factors which should be taken into consideration in the analysis of the V-2 phenomenon in OE and OHG translated material are the following:

(a) (b) (c) (d)

type of subject type of clause-initial element type of intervening phrase potential Latin influence

These factors, all of which are of a morphosyntactic nature, are the basis for our research questions presented in the following section. 3.2 Research questions and the structure of the study In order to compare the use of the V-2 order in main declarative clauses in the OE and OHG translations from our study corpus, the following research questions must be answered: (a) Is V-2 the dominant order in non-conjunct main declarative clauses in all the texts? (b) Are there any differences in the behaviour of pronominal and nominal subjects as far as the V-2 phenomenon is concerned? (c) To what extent does the type of clause-initial element influence the rate of S-V inversion? (d) What intervening phrases can be correlated with the V-late order? (e) Does Latin appear to influence the use of the V-2 order in the investigated clause type? Only non-conjunct8 main declarative clauses with an overt subject are taken into consideration in the present chapter. A clause is considered to follow the V-2 order if the finite verb takes exactly the second position, as in (1). (1) Eft clypode se engel Abraham (Genesis, cl. 1622) again called the angel Abraham   ‘The angel called Abraham again’ (Gen 22:15)

However, vocatives and interjections, which are treated as extra-clausal elements, are not taken into consideration when calculating the finite verb position. As a result, clauses such as in (2) and (3) are also counted as V-2. 8.  Conjunct clauses are analysed separately in Chapter 6.



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

(2) See daga quhemant (Isidor, cl. 740) behold days come   ‘Behold, the days will come’ (3) meistar, theso menigi thrukent thih (Tatian, cl. 2415) master the multitudes press you-SG.ACC   ‘Master, the multitudes press you’  (Lk 8:45)

Appositions of the subject phrase were not considered as violations of the V-2 rule either; thus, clauses such as (4) are counted as V-2. (4) Daz eina horin daz bezeichenet einen got (Phys., cl. 91) the one horn that signifies one god   ‘One horn [of a unicorn] means there is only one god’

The last element whose presence was not considered a deviation from the V-2 order was the negative particle, which is treated as a proclitic part of the verb phrase throughout the whole book. (5) Ða ne ongeton hig þæt word (Luke, cl. 373) then not understood they the word   ‘Then they did not understand the word’  (Lk 2:50)

The presence of any other constituent before the uninverted subject or between the subject and the verb is considered to be the defining V-late characteristic. Three subtypes of V-late are distinguished in the analysis. Firstly, the x-x-V-S pattern, when at least two clause elements other than the subject (e.g. adverbials, fronted objects or complements) are found before the finite verb in combination with S-V inversion, as in (6).9 Some of these clauses contain more than two clause-initial elements, as in (7), the subject is not necessarily the clause-final element, and there may be some other elements placed between the verb and the subject. In fact, a lengthy label like x-x-(x)-V-(x)-S-(x) would show all the patterns included here. (6) Uuár giuuesso quidu ih íu (Tatian, cl. 3022) truly certainly say I you-PL.DAT   ‘Truly and certainly I tell you’  (Mt 5:18)

9.  Such cases are usually treated as related to the V-2 phenomenon (cf. Haeberli 2002) because the presence of the introductory elements triggers S-V inversion, even though, as a result, the finite verb is not the second element of the clause. In this study, x-x-V-S clauses are classified as V-late. At the same time, they are not considered a serious violation of the V-2 rule because they involve S-V inversion. As shown in Tables 4 and 8 below, this pattern is very infrequent in all the texts, especially with pronominal subjects.

57

58

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(7) efne nu her ys ðin wif (Genesis, cl. 804) likewise now here is your wife   ‘Now also, here is your wife’  (Gen 12:19)

The second type of V-late is x-S-V, where the presence of a clause element other than the subject fails to cause S-V inversion in violation of the V-2 rule, as in (8). Some of these clauses have more than one introductory element, as in (9); in some, there is also an intervening phrase between the uninverted subject and the verb, and the verb is not always the final constituent. Thus, the label x-(x)-S-(x)-V-(x) would illustrate all the possible sub-patterns most precisely. What we treated as decisive in order to classify a clause as x-S-V was the presence of at least one element before the uninverted subject, regardless of all the other possible elements present in the clause. (Genesis, cl. 697) (8) Witodlice hi hæfdon tigelan for stan bricks for stone   truly they had ‘Truly they had bricks instead of stones’  (Gen 11:3) (9) Betweoh ðas ðing þa se halga wer Agustinus ferde between these things then the holy man Augustine went ofer sæ (Bede, cl. 925) over sea   ‘Then in the meantime the holy man Augustine crossed the sea’

The third possible V-late pattern is S-x-V, where a clause element (henceforth referred to as an intervening phrase) can be found between the clause-initial subject and the finite verb, as in (10). Sometimes, there is more than one intervening phrase in a clause, as in (11), and the verb is not necessarily the clause-final element, so the more precise label, which we decided not to use for reasons of convenience, would be S-x-(x)-V-(x). (10) He eow fullað on halgum gaste & on fyre (Luke, cl. 446) he you-PL.ACC baptises on holy ghost and on fire   ‘He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire’  (Lk 3:16) (11) ðeos mid hyre tearum mine fet þwoh (Luke, cl. 1233) this-F with her tears my feet-ACC washed   ‘She has washed my feet with tears’  (Lk 7:44)



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

3.3 Overall results Table  1 presents the frequency of the V-2 order in non-conjunct main declarative clauses in all the texts considered in the analysis. The numbers are calculated twice: first for all the clauses irrespective of their length and then for ‘long clauses’, i.e. clauses consisting of at least 3 constituents.10 However, Table 1 clearly shows that excluding short clauses does not influence the results in a substantial way. Table 1.  The frequency of the V-2 order in non-conjunct main declarative clauses with S. Text

Main clauses

V-2 clauses

Long main clauses

Long V-2 clauses

Genesis

565

358 (63.3%)

534

327 (61.2%)

Bede

410

195 (47.6%)

398

183 (46.0%)

Luke

512

369 (72.1%)

497

354 (71.2%)

Tatian

638

462 (72.4%)

615

440 (71.5%)

Isidor

184

111 (60.3%)

177

104 (58.8%)

Physiologus

  98

98 (100%)

  93

  93 (100%)

The frequency itself already points to some interesting differences between the texts, ranging from 100% of V-2 in Physiologus to only 46% in Bede. Naturally, the high incidence of V-1 declaratives in Bede (cf. Table  1 in Chapter 4) limits the frequency of the V-2 pattern in this text. When we consider the frequency of clauses in which the finite verb occupies a later position in the clause (i.e. clauses following the V-late order), all the OE texts are quite similar, as shown in Table 2. Table 2.  The frequency of V-late declaratives. Text

Long main clauses

V-late clauses

Genesis

534

182 (34.1%)

Bede

398

143 (35.9%)

Luke

497

133 (26.8%)

Tatian

615

  87 (14.1%)

Isidor

177

  57 (32.2%)

Physiologus

  93

0 (0%)

10.  In short clauses composed just of the subject and the finite verb, only the V-2 order is possible since V-1 clauses are analysed separately in Chapter 4. The calculation excluding them is free of a bias against the V-late order.

59

60 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

There are two texts in which the V-late order is either completely (Physiologus) or predominantly (Tatian) avoided, whereas in the remaining four translations, it can be identified in ca. 30% of clauses. 3.4 V-2 phenomenon according to subject type This section presents overall results concerning the general behaviour of pronominal and nominal subjects with respect to the V-2 phenomenon; the influence of other variables (i.e. clause-initial elements and Latin interference) is not taken into account here. 3.4.1

Pronominal subjects

As shown in section 3.1, nominal and pronominal subjects demonstrate different element order patterns in OE, while the influence of subject type on OHG sentence structure is less clear. Table 3 shows how often the V-2 and V-late patterns co-occur with pronominal subjects. Table 3.  V-2 and V-late element orders in main declarative clauses with pronominal subjects. Text

S-V

x-V-S

V-late

Total

Genesis

125 (58.4%)

  22 (10.3%)

  67 (31.3%)

214

Bede

  55 (31.1%)

  59 (33.3%)

  63 (35.6%)

177

Luke

106 (35.8%)

113 (38.2%)

  77 (26.0%)

296

Tatian

155 (58.3%)

  79 (29.7%)

  32 (12.0%)

266

Isidor

  24 (44.4%)

  11 (20.4%)

  19 (35.2%)

  54

Physiologus

  15 (30.0%)

  35 (70.0%)

0 (0%)

  50

The V-2 order (i.e. S-V and x-V-S combined) is predominant with pronominal subjects in all the texts; the frequency of V-late is never higher than 35%. The V-late order is relatively infrequent in Tatian (only ca. 12%) and absent from Physiologus (where all main declarative clauses follow the V-2 order). Table 4 shows the frequency of three subtypes of V-late distinguished in the analysis: x-x-V-S, x-S-V and S-x-V.



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

Table 4.  Order of elements in V-late clauses with pronominal subjects. Text

x-x-V-S

x-S-V

S-x-V

Total

Genesis

   0 (0%)

    57 (85.1%)

    10 (14.9%)

67

Bede

    2 (3.2%)

    40 (63.5%)

    21 (33.3%)

63

Luke

   0 (0%)

    54 (70.1%)

    23 (29.9%)

77

Tatian

    3 (9.4%)

     8 (25.0%)

    21 (65.6%)

32

Isidor

     2 (10.5%)

     9 (47.4%)

     8 (42.1%)

19

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

 0

Physiologus

It is evident that in all the OE texts, x-S-V (lack of inversion) is the most frequent type of V-late in clauses with pronominal subjects. As far as the OHG translations are concerned, the tendencies are text-specific: in Tatian, S-x-V (the use of intervening phrases) has the highest frequency, in Isidor, S-x-V and x-S-V are balanced, while in Physiologus, V-late is not attested. Since the main difference between OE pronominal and nominal subjects is supposed to be the rate of S-V inversion, with pronominal subjects less prone to it, in Table 5, x-x-V-S clauses were counted together with x-V-S and juxtaposed with x-S-V clauses in which the introductory element fails to cause inversion. Table 5.  Rate of S-V inversion with pronominal subjects. inverted x-(x)-V-S

non-inverted x-S-V

Total

Genesis

Text

  22 (27.8%)

  57 (72.2%)

  79

Bede

  61 (60.4%)

  40 (39.6%)

101

Luke

113 (67.7%)

  54 (32.3%)

167

Tatian

  82 (91.1%)

  8 (8.9%)

  90

Isidor

  13 (59.1%)

   9 (40.9%)

  22

Physiologus

  35 (100%)

0 (0%)

  35

There are substantial differences in the range of inversion of pronominal subjects among the translations; from 100% in Physiologus and ca. 91% in Tatian, through ca. 60–68% in Luke, Isidor and Bede, to only ca. 28% in Genesis. These differences are, to a great extent, caused by different frequencies of specific clause-initial elements, and a detailed analysis of this issue is presented in section 3.5. Pronominal subjects considered in the analysis are mainly personal pronouns, though there are also some demonstrative, indefinite and possessive pronouns found in either the x-(x)-V-S or x-S-V pattern, as shown in Table 6.

61

62

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 6.  Rate of S-V inversion of various pronoun types. Text

Rate of inversion of personal pronouns

Rate of inversion of demonstrative pronouns

Rate of inversion of other pronouns

Genesis

  27.8% (22 out of 79)

– (0 out of 0)

– (0 out of 0)

Bede

  60.4% (55 out of 91)

75.0% (3 out of 4)

  50.0% (3 out of 6)

Luke

  67.9% (110 out of 162)

33.3% (1 out of 3)

100% (2 out of 2)

Tatian

  93.0% (80 out of 86)

   0% (0 out of 1)

  66.7% (2 out of 3)

Isidor

  61.9% (13 out of 21)

   0% (0 out of 1)

– (0 out of 0)

Physiologus

100% (21 out of 21)

100% (10 out of 10)

100% (4 out of 4)

The only text in which the number of personal, demonstrative and other pronouns is comparable is Physiologus, but there are no differences in their syntactic behaviour: all the pronouns without any exceptions undergo inversion after any kind of clause-initial element. In all the other texts, such pronouns mainly follow the S-V or S-x-V pattern, so there is little context for inversion in their case. Because of the low number of all pronoun types except for personal pronouns, in the following analysis, pronominal subjects are presented together without subclassification. 3.4.2

Nominal subjects

As far as nominal subjects are concerned, Bede is the only translation in which the frequency of V-2 and V-late is balanced, as shown in Table 7. Table 7.  V-2 and V-late element orders in main declaratives with nominal subjects. Text

S-V

x-V-S

V-late

Total

Genesis

129 (39.6%)

  82 (25.1%)

115 (35.3%)

326

Bede

  22 (13.7%)

  59 (36.6%)

  80 (49.7%)

161

Luke

  30 (14.6%)

120 (58.3%)

  56 (27.2%)

206

Tatian

107 (37.8%)

121 (42.7%)

  55 (19.4%)

283

Isidor

  37 (32.5%)

  39 (34.2%)

  38 (33.3%)

114

Physiologus

  28 (58.3%)

  20 (41.7%)

0 (0%)

  48



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

In all the other translations, the V-late order can be identified in a minority of clauses: ca. 35% (Genesis and Isidor), ca. 27% (Luke) and ca. 19% (Tatian). Table 8 shows the distribution of three V-late sub-patterns across the texts. Table 8.  Order of elements in V-late clauses with nominal subjects. Text

x-x-V-S

x-S-V

S-x-V

Total

   10 (8.7%)

    25 (21.7%)

    80 (69.6%)

115

Bede

    15 (18.8%)

    53 (66.3%)

    12 (15.0%)

  80

Luke

     6 (10.7%)

    31 (55.4%)

    19 (33.9%)

  56

Tatian

    10 (18.2%)

    19 (34.5%)

    26 (47.2%)

  55

Isidor

    15 (39.5%)

    12 (28.9%)

    11 (31.6%)

  38

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

   0

Genesis

Physiologus

First of all, it must be noted that the texts show hardly any regularities. Genesis and Tatian are the only translations in which the most frequent V-late pattern is S-x-V, but the difference between them is quite striking (70% and 47% respectively). Lack of inversion (x-S-V) predominates in Bede and Luke (66% and 55%), but it is exceptionally uncommon in Genesis (only 22%). V-late is not attested in Physiologus, while in Isidor the frequency of all the subtypes is balanced. Moreover, in three translations (Bede, Tatian and, especially, Isidor), a substantial number of V-late clauses follow the x-x-V-S pattern, which is not a clear violation of the V-2 rule. When such cases are considered together with the x-V-S pattern and compared with x-S-V clauses, it turns out that – as expected – in all the texts, the majority of nominal subjects undergo inversion, as shown in Table 9. Table 9.  Rate of S-V inversion with nominal subjects. Text

inverted x-(x)-V-S

non-inverted x-S-V

Total

Genesis

  92 (78.6%)

  25 (21.4%)

117

Bede

  74 (58.3%)

  53 (41.1%)

127

Luke

126 (80.3%)

  31 (19.7%)

157

Tatian

131 (87.3%)

  19 (12.7%)

150

Isidor

  54 (81.8%)

  12 (17.7%)

  66

Physiologus

  20 (100%)

0 (0%)

  20

However, if the rate of inversion of nominal and pronominal subjects is compared, as in Table 10, the texts demonstrate different proportions.

63

64 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 10.  Rate of S-V inversion of pronominal and nominal subjects. Text

Rate of inversion of pronominal subjects

Rate of inversion of nominal subjects

Genesis

  22 (27.8%)

  92 (78.6%)

Bede

  61 (60.4%)

  74 (58.3%)

Luke

113 (67.7%)

126 (80.3%)

Tatian

  82 (91.1%)

131 (87.3%)

Isidor

  13 (59.1%)

  54 (81.8%)

Physiologus

  35 (100%)

  20 (100%)

In three texts, i.e. Genesis, Luke and Isidor, nominal subjects are inverted more often than pronominal subjects, but only in Genesis is this difference substantial (ca. 28% vs. ca. 78%). In Physiologus, all subjects are inverted irrespective of their type, while in Bede and in Tatian, pronominal subjects are inverted slightly more often than nominal subjects. This is surprising especially in the case of Bede, which is an OE translation, where the opposite tendency is expected. 3.5 Clause-initial elements causing S-V inversion The fact that pronominal and nominal subjects undergo inversion with such different frequencies in the analysed translations is, to a certain extent, caused by the differing frequencies of various types of clause-initial elements. This section presents a detailed qualitative analysis of these introductory elements. Genesis: As illustrated in Table 11, the clause-initial elements causing inversion of pronominal subjects in Genesis are adverbials and clauses, while nominal subjects are inverted by a more diversified set of phrases. The most frequent adverbial, which is responsible for 59% of pronominal and 68% of nominal inversions, is þa, as in (12). It would also seem that pronominal subjects may be inverted by clauses, as in (13), where a subordinate clause precedes a main clause demonstrating the V-1 pattern. However, all 3 cases of such a pattern found in Genesis contain a negated verb, which means that an alternative analysis is possible here: we could argue that the inversion was caused by ne itself, not the preceding clause. Conversely, in both cases in which a nominal subject is inverted by a preceding subordinate clause, the verb is not negated, which points to a difference between nominal and pronominal subjects in this respect.



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

Table 11.  Type of clause-initial elements in x-V-S and x-x-V-S pattern in Genesis. Clause-initial element / subject type Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

  19

   86.4%

  71

   86.6%

(in that: her)

   (0)

   (0%)

   (2)

    (2.4%)

(in that: nu)

   (2)

   (9%)

   (1)

    (1.2%)

(in that: þa)

  (13)

    (59.0%)

  (56)

   (68.3%)

(in that: ðær)

   (0)

   (0%)

   (2)

    (2.4%)

(in that: þonne)

   (2)

   (9%)

   (1)

    (1.2%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

   (0)

   (0%)

   (6)

    (7.3%)

(in that: other)

   (2)

   (9%)

   (3)

    (3.6%)

indirect object

   0

   0%

   2

    2.4%

prepositional object

   0

   0%

   1

    1.2%

complement

   0

   0%

   3

    3.6%

non-finite verb

   0

   0%

   3

    3.6%

clause

   3

    13.6%

   2

    2.4%

Total

  22

100%

  82

100%

adverbial

(12) Ða wæs hit geworden æfter manegum dagum (Genesis, cl. 309) then was it made after many days   ‘Then it came to pass after many days’  (Gen 4:3) (13) Þonne ðu tilast ðin on eorðan, ne sylð heo ðe when you-SG till your-SG on earth not gives she you-SG.DAT nane wæstmas (Genesis, cl. 339–340) no fruit   ‘When you shall till it, it shall not give any fruit to you’  (Gen 4:12)

Inversion of nominal subjects may be caused by a wider range of elements, including those that fail to invert subject pronouns, e.g. prepositional phrases with an adverbial function, as in (14), or fronted objects or complements, as in (15). (14) On angynne gesceop God heofonan & eorðan (Genesis, cl. 1) on beginning created God heaven and earth   ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’  (Gen 1:1) (Genesis, cl. 1589) (15) Him andwyrde se fæder him answered the father   ‘The father answered him’  (Gen 22:8)

65

66 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

S-V inversion may also be caused by a combination of two introductory elements, resulting in the x-x-V-S pattern (not included in Table 11). No such clauses with subject pronouns have been identified in the analysed sample of Genesis (cf. Tables 4 and 8), while in the case of nominal subjects, the introductory elements were mostly combinations of two or even three adverbial elements, as in (16). (16) Eft ða on æfnunge befeol slæp on Abram (Genesis, cl. 954) Again then on evening fell sleep on Abram   ‘Again then in the evening sleep fell upon Abram’  (Gen 15:12)

To sum up, pronominal subjects found in Genesis are inverted by a limited set of introductory phrases, while nominal subjects undergo inversion in various syntactic contexts. Bede: In the next OE translation, Bede, the situation is quite similar to Genesis: pronominal subjects are inverted only by adverbials and clauses, whereas inverted nominal subjects are found after various clause-initial elements, as illustrated in Table 12. Table 12.  Type of clause-initial element in x-V-S pattern in Bede. Clause-initial element / subject type adverbial

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

  43

    72.9%

  51

   86.4%

(in that: her)

   (0)

   (0%)

   (4)

   (6.8%)

(in that: þa)

  (32)

    (54.2%)

  (23)

   (39.0%)

(in that: ðær)

   (0)

   (0%)

   (1)

   (1.7%)

(in that: þonne)

   (9)

    (15.2%)

   (5)

   (8.5%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

   (0)

   (0%)

  (11)

   (18.6%)

(in that: other)

   (2)

   (0%)

   (7)

   (11.9%)

direct object

   0

   0%

   4

    6.8%

prepositional object

   0

   0%

   1

    1.7%

complement

   0

   0%

   2

    3.4%

clause

  16

    27.1%

   1

    1.7%

Total

  59

100%

  59

100%

The dominant inverting element in the case of pronominal subjects is again þa, as in (17); the other simple adverb which causes inversion of subject pronouns in Bede is þonne. What is more, there are 16 cases of pronominal inversions caused by preceding clauses, 15 of which are negated, as in (18), which makes them structurally ambiguous between V-1 and V-2, but the one shown in (19) is affirmative.



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

(17) þa wæs he sona yrre geworden (Bede, cl. 211) then was he soon angry made   ‘Then the judge soon grew angry’ (18) Ac forðon þe ge hider feorran elþeodige cwomon ... nellað we forðon but because you hither from far abroad come not-will we therefore eow hefige beon (Bede, cl. 834, 839) you-PL.DAT heavy be   ‘But because you came here from abroad... we will therefore not harass you’

(19) Þa he ða ongeat þone intingan heora cymes cwæð when he then understood the cause their-GEN coming-GEN said he (Bede, cl. 1988–1989) he   ‘When he understood the cause of their coming, he said’



Phrases which cause only nominal inversion are prepositional phrases functioning as adverbials, as in (20), and fronted objects or complements, as in (21). (20) Æfter þyssum com god gear (Bede, cl. 565) After this came good year   ‘Afterwards a good year came’ (21) Us drifað þa ellreordan to sæ (Bede, cl. 536) Us drive the barbarians to sea   ‘The barbarians drive us to the sea’

Inversion caused by two or more introductory elements in Bede (x-x-V-S pattern) follows all the rules specified above for x-V-S clauses, i.e. in clauses in which a subject pronoun is inverted, one of the introductory phrases is always þa, while nominal subjects are inverted mostly by a combination of two adverbials, as in Genesis, cf. (16). Luke: As shown in Table 13, in Luke, þa is practically the only trigger of S-V inversion both with pronominal and nominal subjects, being responsible for 92% and 87% of such inversions respectively.

67

68 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 13.  Types of clause-initial elements in x-V-S pattern in Luke. Clause-initial element / subject type

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

  108

   95.6%

  114

    95.0%

(in that: her)

    (1)

    (0.9%)

    (2)

     (1.7%)

(in that: nu)

    (0)

   (0%)

    (1)

     (0.8%)

(in that: þa)

  (104)

   (92.0%)

  (104)

    (86.7%)

(in that: ðar)

    (0)

   (0%)

    (1)

     (0.8%)

(in that: þonne)

    (3)

    (2.6%)

    (1)

     (0.8%)

(in that: soþlice)

    (0)

   (0%)

    (3)

     (2.5%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

    (0)

   (0%)

    (2)

     (1.7%)

indirect object

    0

   0%

    2

     1.7%

complement

    3

    2.6%

    2

     1.7%

clause

    2

    1.8%

    2

     1.7%

Total

  113

100%

  120

100%

adverbial

Apart from þa, shown in (22), there are also a few cases of pronominal inversion after þonne, illustrated by (23). (Luke, cl. 275) (22) þa oncneowon hig be þam worde then understood they by the word   ‘Then they understood of the word’  (Lk 2:17) (23) þonne fæstað hig on þam dagum (Luke, cl. 798) then fast they on the days   ‘Then they shall fast in those days’  (Lk 5:35)

The fact that pronominal subjects are inverted by þa and þonne is not surprising. What is unexpected, though, is that there are three x-V-S clauses with pronominal subjects inverted by a fronted complement. However, all of these clauses follow the same pattern and come from the same passage, as shown in (24). (24) Eadige synd ge ðe hingriað nu forþam þe ge beoð gefyllede Eadige synt blessed are you that hunger now because you are filled blessed are ge ðe nu wepað forþam ge hlihaþ. Eadige beo ge, þone eow you that now weep because you laugh blessed are you when you-PL.ACC men hatiað men hate ‘Blessed are you that hunger now for you shall be filled. Blessed are you that weep now for you shall laugh. Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you’  (Lk 6:21–22)





Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 69

Here, the fact that two of the pronoun subjects are modified by relative clauses seems to be the trigger for placing the subject in the clause-final position (and in the third clause, probably by analogy and for stylistic reasons, its position is repeated). Thus, these examples cannot be used on their own to claim that fronted complements may invert pronominal subjects in OE.11 In the case of nominal subjects in Luke, there is greater diversity in clause-initial elements than in clauses with pronominal subjects, but the frequency of some inverting phrases is rather low: apart from simple adverbs (mostly þa), there are some isolated cases of prepositional phrases functioning as adverbials, as in (25), subordinate clauses (without negation), as in (26), and fronted object or complements, as in (27). (25) On Herodes dagum, iudea cyninges, wæs sum sacerd on naman Zacharias on Herod’s days, Judea king’s was some priest on name Zachary of Abian tune (Luke, cl. 12) of Abia’s course   ‘There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zachary, of the course of Abia’  (Lk 1:5) (26) And gefylledum dagum þa hig agen gehwurfon, belaf and fulfilled-DAT days-DAT when they back returned remained se Hælend on Hierusalem (Luke, cl. 345–347) the Saviour on Jerusalem   ‘And fulfilled the days, when they returned, Jesus remained in Jerusalem’ (Lk 2:43)

(27) þe synt þine synna forgyfenne (Luke, cl. 1247) you-SG.DAT are your sins forgiven   ‘Your sins are forgiven’  (Lk 7:48)

Interestingly, there are also 3 cases of inversion triggered by soþlice, which, as a sentence adverb, quite consistently fails to cause inversion in the biblical texts from our corpus (cf. section 3.6). In Luke, soþlice causes S-V inversion in two negated clauses, as in (28), or simply co-occurs with the inversion because negation on its own could be responsible for it, as shown in Chapter 4. However, there is also one affirmative clause, shown in (29), in which only soþlice could have triggered inversion. 11.  A similar example Eadig eart þu abgar is given in Fuss & Tripps (2002) after Pintzuk (1999) – in this case, there is no following subordinate clause, but it is interesting to note that all of these exceptional patterns involve the formula ‘blessed is / are’. It seems that this phrase was functioning as a formulaic expression in OE, though a study involving more texts would be necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

70 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(28) Soðlice nis nan ðing digle (Luke, cl. 1325) truly not-is no thing secret   ‘Truly there is nothing secret’  (Lk 8:17) (29) Soþlice cymð strengra þonne ic (Luke, cl. 443) truly comes stronger than I   ‘Truly there shall come one mightier than I’  (Lk 3:16)

The reason why the clause shown in (29) follows the V-2 pattern could be either information structure (‘one mightier than I’ is a new subject), the fact that the subject phrase is very long and therefore it would naturally be postponed, Latin interference (the equivalent Latin clause venit autem fortior me follows a similar, though not identical, pattern), or a combination of these factors. The x-x-V-S pattern is used in Luke with nominal subjects only; in 5 out of 6 cases the first element is a sentence adverb (soþlice or witodlice) which is followed by a prepositional phrase or fronted object causing S-V inversion; in the remaining x-x-V-S clause, both elements are inverting phrases. In sum, all the OE translations are similar with respect to S-V inversion. Apart from the exceptional clauses shown in (24), Luke resembles Genesis and Bede in its limited set of clause-initial phrases which may cause inversion of pronominal subjects, as opposed to the greater variety for nominal subjects. Tatian: As far as OHG translations are concerned, no clear differences in the behaviour of pronominal and nominal subjects were expected. This expectation is met in Tatian, where inversion of both pronominal and nominal subjects is mostly caused by adverbials (as illustrated in Table 14). There is one adverb, tho, as shown in (30), which is exceptionally frequent, though its dominance in the x-V-S pattern is not as striking as in the case of the OE þa.



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

Table 14.  Type of clause-initial elements in x-V-S pattern in Tatian. Clause-initial element / subject type

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

  58

    73.4%

  85

   70.2%

(in that: bithiu)

   (4)

     (5.1%)

   (0)

   (0%)

(in that: tho)

  (24)

    (30.4%)

  (54)

    (44.6%)

(in that: uuar)

   (9)

    (11.4%)

   (0)

   (0%)

  (10)

    (12.6%)

  (11)

     (9.0%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

   (7)

     (8.9%)

  (11)

     (9.0%)

(in that: other)

adverbial

(in that: light

adverbs)12

   (4)

     (5.1%)

   (9)

     (7.4%)

direct object

   5

     6.3%

   5

     4.1%

indirect object

   3

     3.8%

   1

     0.8%

complement

   3

     3.8%

   8

     6.6%

non-finite verb

   0

   0%

   2

     1.6%

clause

  10

    12.6%

  20

    16.5%

Total

  79

100%

121

100%

The adverbials causing inversion of pronominal subjects are much more varied than in the case of the OE texts. The most frequent ones, apart from tho, are uuar, as in (31), and light adverbs, mostly so, as in (32). Clauses introduced by uuar are an interesting case since all 9 of them follow a very similar pattern (uuar followed by a verb of saying and the personal pronoun ih), and 4 are completely identical in form, as shown in (31). This suggests that they functioned as a relatively fixed equivalent of amen dico vobis/tibi, which is a frequent phrase in the Latin Vulgate.13 (30) Tho quad her zi andaremo man (Tatian, cl. 2051) then said he to another man   ‘Then he said to another’  (Lk 9:59) (31) uuar sagen ih iu (Tatian, cl. 920, 1467, 1862, 1973) truly say I you-PL.DAT   ‘Truly I say to you’  (e.g. Mt 6:2) (32) só uuerdet ir gituomte (Tatian, cl. 1560) so become they judged   ‘So you shall be judged’  (Mt 7:2) 12.  According to the classification presented in section 3.1.3, light adverbs are so, dhar, dhanne, sus, iu and nu (after Robinson 1997 and Axel 2007). 13.  Phraseological equivalence is analysed in Chapter 8 devoted to translation strategies.

71

72

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

In addition, the x-V-S pattern is also quite often triggered by finite and non-finite subordinate clauses preceding the main clause, as in (33) and (34), without any structural ambiguities related to negation. Finally, inversion of both nominal and pronominal subjects is also caused by fronted objects and complements, as in (35) and (36). (33) Inti after thiu gifulta uuarun taga sinero subarnessi after Moyseses euuu, and after filled were days her purification’s after Moses’ law brahtun sie inan thô in Hierusalem (Tatian, cl. 410–411) took they him-ACC then in Jerusalem   ‘And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they took him to Jerusalem’  (Lk 2:22)



(34) Thó ziganganemo themo uúine quad thes heilantes muoter then failing-DAT the wine-DAT said the saviour’s mother zi imo (Tatian, cl. 1880–1881) to him   ‘Then, the wine failing, the mother of Jesus said to him’  (Jn 2:3) (35) thisu allu gibu ih thir, (Tatian, cl. 832) these all give I you-SG.DAT   ‘All these will I give you’  (Mt 4:9) (36) Mihhiles bezira ist ther man themo scafe (Tatian, cl. 2856) much better is the man the sheep-DAT   ‘A man is much better than a sheep’  (Mt 12:12)

Fronted non-finite verb forms cause 2 inversions of nominal subjects, as in (37), and there is no similar example with a subject pronoun. However, this does not prove that there is a difference in the syntactic behaviour of nominal and pronominal subjects because non-conjunct main declarative clauses with subject pronouns and fronted non-finite verbs are simply absent from the analysed sample of Tatian. (37) Gihalot uuas ouh thara ther heilant inti sine iungiron called was also there the saviour and his disciples zi thero brutloufti (Tatian, cl. 1879) to the wedding   ‘Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding’  (Jn 2:2)

The x-x-V-S pattern is used in Tatian mostly, but not exclusively, with nominal subjects (10 out of 13 cases). There is no difference in the quality of these phrases between nominal and pronominal subjects; they are all combinations of adverbial phrases or some other constituent and an adverbial.



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

On the whole, one may conclude that inversion of pronominal and nominal subjects in Tatian is caused by the same set of clause-initial elements. Isidor: The inverting phrases identified in Isidor are presented in Table 15. Table 15.  Type of clause-initial elements in x-V-S pattern in Isidor. Clause-initial element / subject type

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

 8

   72.7%

  21

    53.8%

(in that: bidhiu)

  (1)

    (9.1%)

   (1)

     (2.6%)

(in that: chiuuisso)

  (3)

    (27.2%)

   (0)

   (0%)

(in that: light adverbs)

  (2)

    (18.2%)

   (5)

    (12.8%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

  (2)

    (18.2%)

  (13)

    (33.3%)

(in that: other)

  (0)

   (0%)

   (2)

     (5.1%)

adverbial

direct object

 3

    27.2%

   5

    12.8%

prepositional object

 0

   0%

   4

    10.2%

complement

 0

   0%

   1

     2.6%

non-finite verb

 0

   0%

   1

     2.6%

clause

 0

   0%

   7

    17.9%

Total

11

100%

  39

100%

There are only 11 pronominal subjects following the x-V-S pattern in the text. It is, therefore, difficult to analyse the results from the point of view of quantity, but as far as quality is concerned, pronominal inversion is caused not only by adverbials, as in (38), but also by fronted objects, as in (39). (Isidor, cl. 60) (38) dhar uuas ih there was I   ‘I was there’ (39) Dhinera uuomba uuaxsmin setzu ih ubar mn hohsetli (Isidor, cl. 685) your womb’s fruit put I upon my throne   ‘I will put your offspring on my throne’

In the case of nominal subjects, the most frequent inverting elements are prepositional phrases functioning as adverbials, as in (40). There are also as many as 7 cases of inversion caused by clauses, as in (41), where the preceding reported clause functions as the object of a verb of saying. Among the inverting phrases, there are also fronted objects, both direct, as in (42), and prepositional, as in (43). The most frequent (light) adverb causing nominal inversion is sus, shown in (44).

73

74

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(40) In dhemu eristin chideda got himil endi aerdha (Isidor, cl. 315) in the first made god heaven and earth   ‘At the beginning God created heaven and earth’ (41) See daga quhemant, quhad druhtin (Isidor, cl. 740–741) behold days come said lord   ‘Behold, the days will come, said the Lord’ (42) Dhiz quhad druhtin minemu christe druhtin (Isidor, cl. 158) that said lord my Christ lord-DAT   ‘Lord said that to Christ, my Lord’ (43) Umbi dhesan selbun christ chundida almahtic fater about the same Christ announced almighty father dhurah isaian (Isidor, cl. 127) through Esiah   ‘The almighty father announced the same Christ through Esiah’

(44) Sus chuad auh der forasago (Isidor, cl. 26) so said also the prophet   ‘The prophet also said thus’

As far as the x-x-V-S pattern is concerned, there are 17 such clauses in Isidor; 2 with pronominal and 15 with nominal subjects. Similarly to the other translations, these clauses are introduced by a combination of adverbials or a combination of an adverbial and some other constituent; no discernible difference between pronominal and nominal subjects has been identified. In short, while there do seem to be some differences between clause-initial elements causing nominal and pronominal inversions in Isidor, it should be noted that pronominal subjects are generally infrequent in Isidor, and this may be the reason why certain categories seem underrepresented. Physiologus: In Physiologus, x-V-S clauses are mostly introduced by light adverbs, as shown in Table 16. The most frequent adverb causing both nominal and pronominal inversion is so, as illustrated by (45).



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

Table 16.  Type of clause-initial elements in x-V-S pattern in Physiologus. Clause-initial element / subject type

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

  33

   94.3%

  18

    90.0%

(in that: light adverbs)

  (28)

   (80.0%)

  (12)

    (60.0%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

   (2)

    (5.7%)

   (2)

    (10.0%)

(in that: other)

   (3)

    (8.6%)

   (4)

    (20.0%)

direct object

   1

    2.8%

   0

   0%

prepositional object

   0

   0%

   2

    10.0%

clause

   1

    2.8%

   0

   0%

Total

  35

100%

  20

100%

adverbial

There is also one clause in which pronominal inversion is triggered by a preceding adverbial clause, shown in (46), and there are cases of inversion with fronted objects, as in (47). (45) So heizzit ein andir tier rinocerus (Phys., cl. 74) so is called one other animal rhinoceros   ‘Another animal is called rhinoceros’ (46) Tene so siu berin sol gat siu when she bear shall goes she in eina gruba uolla uuazzeres (Phys., cl. 170–171) in a pit-ACC full water-GEN   ‘When she (elephant) needs to bear a child, she goes into a pit full of water’

(47) Den uurm sculen uuir biledon (Phys., cl. 256) the worm-ACC should we follow   ‘We should follow [the example of] this snake’

As indicated earlier, there are no x-x-V-S clauses in Physiologus. On the whole, this text is consistently V-2 and, as a result, all subjects, both nominal and pronominal, are inverted by a similar (and varied) set of clause-initial elements, which makes all OHG translations homogenous and different from OE, where the set of inverting phrases is very limited in the case of subject pronouns. 3.6 Clause-initial elements not causing S-V inversion Apart from clause-initial elements which invert the finite verb and the subject, there are also clause-initial elements which fail to cause inversion. Other studies

75

76

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

suggest that it is a standard pattern after sentence adverbs, which stand outside of the clause and do not influence its structure; in OE it is also expected with pronominal subjects, which generally tend not to undergo inversion. Genesis: In Genesis, there are 57 uninverted pronominal subjects and 25 uninverted nominal subjects; phrases which introduce clauses containing them are presented in Table 17. Table 17.  Clause-initial elements in x-S-V pattern in Genesis. Clause-initial element / subject type

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

  36

    63.1%

25

100%

(in that: æfter ðam)

   (2)

     (3.5%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: eac swylce)

   (0)

   (0%)

  (2)

     (8.0%)

(in that: efne)

   (6)

    (10.5%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: eft)

   (2)

     (3.5%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: nu)

   (3)

     (5.3%)

  (2)

     (8.0%)

(in that: soðlice)

   (1)

     (1.7%)

  (7)

    (28.0%)

(in that: swa)

   (0)

   (0%)

  (1)

     (4.0%)

(in that: witodlice)

   (2)

     (3.5%)

  (9)

    (36.0%)

(in that: þa)

   (0)

   (0%)

  (2)

     (8.0%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

  (11)

    (19.3%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: other)

adverbial

   (9)

    (15.8%)

  (2)

     (8.0%)

direct object

  11

    19.3%

 0

   0%

indirect object

   2

     3.5%

 0

   0%

prepositional object

   7

    12.3%

 0

   0%

complement

   1

     1.7%

 0

   0%

Total

  57

100%

25

100%

The main difference between pronominal and nominal subjects is that the latter fail to undergo inversion only in clauses introduced by adverbials, mostly witodlice or soðlice, as in (48), which is in accordance with the findings of our previous study (Cichosz & Gaszewski 2014). (48) Witodlice Cain cwæð to Drihtne (Genesis, cl. 344) truly Cain said to Lord   ‘Truly Cain said to the Lord’  (Gen 4:13)

On the other hand, pronominal subjects follow the x-S-V order in clauses introduced by a very varied set of initial elements, including adverbials functioning as



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

prepositional phrases, as in (49), and fronted objects or complements, sometimes also accompanied by adverbs, as in (50). (49) on sarnysse ðu acenst cild (Genesis, cl. 268) on sorrow you-SG bear child   ‘in sorrow shall you bring forth children’  (Gen 3:16) (50) Min wedd soðlice ic sette to Isaace (Genesis, cl. 1102) my covenant truly I set to Isaac   ‘Truly I will establish my covenant with Isaac’  (Gen 17:21)

Interestingly enough, there are two clauses in which þa fails to cause inversion, but in both cases the adverb is preceded by hwæt, as in (51). The presence of the interjection seems to block the inverting influence of the adverb, which consistently triggers the x-V-S pattern elsewhere. (51) Hwæt, þa Abram arærde ðær an weofod Gode (Genesis, cl. 761) behold then Abram built there an altar God-DAT   ‘Behold, then Abram built there an altar to God’  (Gen 12:7)

Thus, as is the case in clauses with inverted subjects, when inversion fails to take place, Genesis follows the typical element order patterns expected of an OE text. Bede: When it comes to Bede, the translation demonstrates some specific patterns which are clearly different from the ones identified in Genesis. First of all, as detailed in Table 18, there are 9 clauses such as (52) and (53) in which þa fails to cause inversion. Table 18.  Type of clause-initial element in x-S-V pattern with pronominal subjects in Bede. Clause-initial element / subject type

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

27

    67.5%

39

    73.6%

(in that: eac swylce)

  (1)

    (2.5%)

  (0)

    (0%)

(in that: eft)

  (2)

    (5.0%)

  (0)

    (0%)

(in that: forþon)

  (5)

    (12.5%)

  (3)

     (5.7%)

(in that: nu)

  (0)

   (0%)

  (1)

     (1.9%)

(in that: swylce)

  (2)

    (5.0%)

  (0)

    (0%)

(in that: þa)

  (4)

    (10.0%)

  (5)

     (9.4%)

adverbial

(in that: þær)

  (0)

   (0%)

  (1)

     (1.9%)

(in that: þonne)

  (0)

   (0%)

  (1)

     (1.9%)

(in that: wel)

  (2)

     (5.0%)

  (0)

    (0%)

77

78

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 18.  (continued) Clause-initial element / subject type

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

(in that: prepositional phrase)

  (7)

    (17.5%)

(12)

    (22.6%)

(in that: other)

  (4)

    (10.0%)

(16)

    (30.2%)

direct object

10

    25.0%

 8

    15.1%

indirect object

 1

     2.5%

 2

     3.8%

prepositional object

 0

   0%

 3

     5.7%

complement

 2

     5.0%

 1

     1.9%

Total

40

100%

53

100%

(52) Ða gyt he ahsode (Bede, cl. 1807) then yet he asked   ‘Then yet he asked’ (53) Ða Angel þeod & Seaxna wæs gelaðod then Angles’ tribe and Saxons’ was invited fram þam foresprecenan cyninge (Bede, cl. 604) from the aforesaid king   ‘Then the Angles and Saxons were called in by the aforesaid king’

In 4 of these clauses, þa is followed by another adverbial, as in (52), but in 5, the order is þa-S-V, as in (53). The presence of this pattern in Bede is rather surprising, given the fact that this adverb (or ‘operator’) is said to cause practically obligatory inversion (cf. section 3.1.2). On the whole, the clause-initial elements which fail to cause pronominal inversion in Bede are quite varied; apart from adverbs, there are prepositional phrases functioning as adverbials, as in (54), and fronted objects or complements, as in (55). (54) on ærmergen he iteð hloðe (Bede, cl. 1695) on morning he eats prey   ‘In the morning he shall devour the prey’ (55) Earmra hungur he oferswiðde mid mettum (Bede, cl. 1737) poor’s hunger-ACC he overcame with food   ‘The hunger of the poor he overcame with food’

When it comes to nominal subjects, inversion fails to take place not only after sentence adverbs, as would be expected. Among the non-inverting adverbials, most frequent are prepositional phrases, usually followed by other adverbials, as in (56).



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

(56) On þam gefeohte eac swylce Ðeodbald Æþelfriþes broþor wæs ofslægen on the battle likewise Theodbald Æthelfrith’s brother was slain mid ealle þy weorode (Bede, cl. 1705) with all the host   ‘In this battle too Theobald, Æthelfrith’s brother, was slain, with all the host’

Apart from adverbials, x-S-V clauses with nominal subjects are also introduced by fronted objects, as in (57), or complements. (57) Þæt gefeoht Æþelfrið gefremede that fight-ACC Æthelfrith finished þy endlyftan geare his rices (Bede, cl. 1707) the eleventh gear his reign’s   ‘Æthelfrith finished this war in the eleventh year of his reign’

In short, the V-late patterns identified in Bede are, to some extent, unexpected because lack of inversion of nominal subjects may be observed in clauses introduced not only by sentence adverbs, but also by fronted objects and complements, as well as þa. Luke: Table 19 shows the patterns found in Luke. Table 19.  Clause-initial elements in x-S-V pattern in Luke. Clause-initial element / subject type adverbial

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

42

   77.8%

29

   93.5%

(in that: elles)

  (0)

   (0%)

  (2)

    (6.5%)

(in that: forþam)

  (1)

    (1.8%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: nu)

  (3)

    (5.5%)

  (1)

    (3.2%)

(in that: rihte)

  (2)

    (3.7%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: soðes)

  (2)

    (3.7%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: soðlice)

(19)

   (35.2%)

(20)

   (64.5%)

(in that: swa)

  (2)

    (3.7%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: þa)

  (3)

    (5.5%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: witodlice)

  (4)

    (7.4%)

  (3)

    (9.7%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

  (3)

    (5.5%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: other)

  (3)

    (5.5%)

  (3)

    (9.7%)

direct object

 8

   14.8%

 2

    6.5%

indirect object

 3

    5.5%

 0

   0%

complement

 1

    1.8%

 0

   0%

Total

54

100%

31

100%

79

80 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

In the case of nominal subjects, the x-S-V pattern is introduced mostly by adverbs, predominantly soðlice, as in (58), but there are also two clauses with fronted objects, as in (59). (58) Soðlice se Hælend wæs full halgum gaste (Luke, cl. 474) truly the Saviour was full holy ghost-DAT   ‘Truly Jesus was full of the Holy Ghost’  (Lk 4:1) (Luke, cl. 1634) (59) þæne mannes sunu forsyhþ despises   this-ACC man’s son ‘The son of man shall despise him’  (Lk 9:26)

In fact, soðlice is the most frequent initial element, even in clauses with a pronominal subject, as in (60). There are also 3 clauses introduced by þa, though in all of these cases another adverbial follows, as in (61). Moreover, pronominal subjects are not inverted after fronted objects, cf. (62). (60) Soþlice he cwæð to þam menegum (Luke, cl. 398) truly he said to the multitudes   ‘Truly he said to the multitudes’  (Lk 3:7) (61) Ða on þam ehteoþan dæge hig comon (Luke, cl. 169) then on the eighth day they came   ‘Then on the eighth day they came’  (Lk 1:59) (Luke, cl. 1178) (62) deofolseocnysse he hæfð devil sickness-ACC he has   ‘He has a devil’  (Lk 7:33)

Thus, Luke is not as atypical in its x-S-V patterns as Bede, but shows some exceptions to the rules followed in Genesis, where only sentence adverbs fail to cause inversion of nominal subjects. On the whole, the OE translations are relatively restrictive in their choice on phrases which fail to cause inversion of nominal subjects, while pronominal subjects follow the x-S-V pattern quite freely. Tatian: In Tatian, the x-S-V pattern is relatively infrequent. As shown in Table 20, in the case of pronominal subjects, this pattern appears largely with adverbials, most frequently with thanne, but it must be noted that all three clauses containing this adverb have exactly the same form, as in (63).



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

Table 20.  Clause-initial elements in x-S-V pattern in Tatian. Clause-initial element / subject type adverbial (in that: girado)

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

7

   87.5%

19

  100.0%

(0)

   (0%)

  (2)

    (10.5%)

(in that: thanne)

(3)

   (37.5%)

  (0)

   (0%)

(in that: tho)

(1)

   (12.5%)

(10)

    (52.6%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

(1)

   (12.5%)

  (1)

     (5.3%)

(in that: other)

(2)

   (25.0%)

  (6)

    (31.6%)

direct object

1

   12.5%

 0

   0%

Total

8

100%

19

100%

(63) Thanne ih quidu íu (Tatian, cl. 1301, 1311, 1332) then I say you-PL.DAT   ‘Then I say to you’  (e.g. Mt 5:22)

There is only one clause shown in (64) in which a fronted object fails to cause inversion of the indefinite pronoun nioman. (64) Got nioman ni gisah io in altere (Tatian, cl. 661) God-ACC no one not saw ever   ‘No man has seen God at any time’  (Jn 1:18)

With nominal subjects, the x-S-V pattern is in most cases introduced by the adverb tho, and in 7 out of 10 cases, the adverb is preceded by an interjection, as in (65). tho appears on its own in only 3 cases, as in (66); in 2 out of these 3 cases the clause is split by an intervening subordinate clause, as in (67). (65) senu thô magi óstana quamun zi Hierusalem (Tatian, cl. 457) behold then wise men from the East came to Jerusalem   ‘behold, then came wise men from the East to Jerusalem’  (Mt 2:1) (66) Thô ther heilant uuas gileitit in vvuostinna fon themo geiste (Tatian, cl. 802) by the ghost   then the saviour was led in desert ‘Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert’  (Mt 4:1) (67) Thô Herodes tougolo gihaloten magin gernlicho lerneta fon in then Herod secretly having called wise men eagerly learned from them thie zît thes sterren (Tatian, cl. 476–477) the time the star’s   ‘Then Herod, privately calling the wise men, learned diligently from them the time of the star’  (Mt 2:7)

81

82

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

The x-S-V pattern in Tatian is very infrequent and thus generalisations are difficult to make, but there are no obvious differences in the behaviour of pronominal and nominal subjects in this respect. Isidor: In Isidor, the x-S-V pattern is relatively infrequent. Table 21 shows how both nominal and pronominal subjects are found in a similar context. Table 21.  Clause-initial elements in x-S-V pattern in Isidor. Clause-initial element / subject type

Pronominal

Nominal

No.

%

No.

%

5

   55.5%

8

   66.7%

(in that: light adverbs)

(2)

   22.2%

(4)

   (33.3%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

(3)

   33.3%

(2)

   (16.7%)

(in that: other)

(1)

   11.1%

(1)

    (8.3%)

3

   33.3%

1

    8.3%

prepositional object

1

   11.1%

3

   25.0%

Total

9

100%

12

100%

adverbial

direct object

The clause-initial elements are mainly prepositional phrases functioning as adverbials, as in (68), light adverbs, as in (69), as well as fronted objects, as in (70). (68) Fona hreue aer lucifere ih dhih chibar (Isidor, cl. 459) from womb before morning star I you-SG.ACC begot   ‘From the womb before the morning star I begot you’ (69) So isaias quhad (Isidor, cl. 425) so Isaiah said   ‘Isaiah said thus’ (70) Dhes martyrunga endi dodh uuir findemes his martyrdom and death we prove mit urchundin dhes heilegin chiscribes (Isidor, cl. 589) with testimony the holy scripture‘s   ‘We shall prove his martyrdom and death with the testimony of the Holy Scripture’

Therefore, the syntactic behaviour of uninverted nominal and pronominal subjects in Isidor seems to be governed by the same rules.14

14.  Since there are no V-late clauses in Physiologus, there are also no clause-initial elements which would fail to cause S-V inversion; the text is therefore absent from the analysis presented in this section.



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

On the whole, lack of inversion after a clause-initial element is much more frequent in OE than in OHG. Only in OE translations may a difference in the syntactic behaviour of pronominal and nominal subjects be noted: while lack of inversion of nominal subjects is generally infrequent, subject pronouns fail to undergo inversion in a more varied set of syntactic contexts. The most common phrases which fail to cause inversion of nominal subjects are adverbs, but in all the texts except Genesis, there are instances of fronted objects or complements which are followed by the S-V pattern. This phenomenon is to a great extent caused by transfer from Latin, which is discussed in section 3.8. 3.7 Intervening phrases Another subtype of V-late is the S-x-V pattern in which the subject is the initial element of the clause and there is at least one ‘intervening’ phrase placed between the subject and the finite verb. The following analysis does not distinguish between pronominal and nominal subjects since the clause-initial position is typical of both subject types. Genesis: In Genesis, there are 90 clauses following the S-x-V order, as shown in Table 22. Table 22.  Intervening phrases in the S-x-V pattern in Genesis. Intervening phrase adverb

No.

%

73

   81.1%

(in that: nu)

  (1)

    (1.1%)

(in that: soðlice)

(14)

   (15.5%)

(in that: þa)

(57)

   (63.3%)

(in that: þa soðlice)

  (1)

    (1.1%)

pronominal object

15

   16.7%

pronominal object + þa

 2

    2.2%

Total

90

100%

The most common intervening elements are the adverbs þa and soðlice, as in (71) and (72). Additionally, there are pronominal objects, whose presence in the preverbal position is a known feature of OE syntax, as in (73). (71) heo ða alede þone sunu under sumum treowe (Genesis, cl. 1504) she then put the son under some tree   ‘Then she placed the son under a tree’  (Gen 21:15)

83

84

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(72) Se eorðe soðlice wæs idel & æmti (Genesis, cl. 2) the earth truly was void and empty   ‘Truly the earth was void and empty,’  (Gen 1:2) (73) hit ðe bið mid gode forgolden (Genesis, cl. 318) it you-SG.DAT is with good repaid   ‘You will be repaid with good’  (Gen 4:7)

In short, it is clear that in Genesis, only adverbs and pronominal object may intervene between the verb and the subject in the investigated clause type. Bede: In Bede, even though the S-x-V order is relatively infrequent, various constituents may intervene between the subject and the verb, as shown in Table 23. Table 23.  Intervening phrases in the S-x-V pattern in Bede. Intervening phrase adverbial

No.

%

17

   51.5%

(in that: soðlice)

  (1)

    (3.0%)

(in that: þa)

  (2)

    (6.1%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

  (5)

   (15.6%)

(in that: sequence of adverbials)

  (2)

    (6.1%)

(in that: other)

  (7)

   (21.2%)

pronominal object

 4

   12.2%

nominal object

 1

    3.0%

nominal object + adverbial(s)

 6

   18.2%

complement

 2

    6.1%

other

 3

    9.1%

Total

33

100%

The most interesting observation is that the intervening phrases may be nominal objects, and that the number of intervening phrases may be quite high, which is a clear divergence from the V-2 order, as in (74). Adverbials also occur in this position and are relatively varied, as shown in (75). (74) he ða þæm menn undeaðlicnesse onweg ahof he then the man-DAT immortality away lifted ofer his synne (Bede, cl. 1235) over his sin   ‘He deprived man of immortality for his sin’



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

(75) biscopas mid folcum buton ænigre are sceawunge ætgædere bishops with people without any mercy consideration together mid iserne & lige fornumene wæron (Bede, cl. 675) with iron and flame destroyed were   ‘Bishops and people, without regard for mercy, were destroyed together by fire and sword’

Thus, again, Bede follows some unexpected patterns, with the finite verb at the end or close to the end of a non-conjunct main declarative clause, and numerous (and varied) combinations of constituents placed between the clause-initial subject and the verb. Luke: The repertoire of phrases which can intervene between the subject and the finite verb in Luke is presented in Table 24. Table 24.  Intervening phrases in the S-x-V pattern in Luke. Intervening phrase adverbial

No.

%

10

   23.8%

(in that: þa)

  (2)

    (4.8%)

(in that: eac)

  (1)

    (2.4%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

  (7)

   (16.7%)

pronominal object

24

   57.1%

nominal object

 3

    7.1%

nominal object +adverbial

 3

    7.1%

pronominal object + nominal object

 2

    4.8%

Total

42

100%

Clearly, the most frequent intervening constituents are pronominal objects, as in (76), but there are also nominal objects, sometimes accompanied by adverbials, as in (77), and adverbial prepositional phrases, as in (78). (76) He eow fullað on halgum gaste & on fyre (Luke, cl. 446) he you-ACC baptises on holy ghost and on fire   ‘He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire’  (Lk 3:16) (77) ðeos mid hyre tearum mine fet þwoh (Luke, cl. 1233) this-F with her tears my feet-ACC washed   ‘She has washed my feet with tears’  (Lk 7:44) (78) His modor & his gebroðru him to comun (Luke, cl. 1337) his mother and his brothers him to came   ‘His mother and brothers came to him’  (Lk 8:19)

85

86 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

In short, both Bede and Luke show patterns that are consistently avoided in Genesis, where only pronominal objects and specific sentence adverbs may intervene between the subject and the verb. The use of intervening phrases is especially striking in Bede, where some clauses are actually V-final with numerous elements intervening between the subject and the verb. In Luke, heavy intervening phrases are used, but they are rarely stacked in the same way as in Bede. Tatian: As shown earlier in Tables 4 and 8, the S-x-V pattern is definitely the most common type of V-late in Tatian. Table 25 shows what types of phrases may intervene between the clause-initial subject and the verb in this translation. Table 25.  Intervening phrases in the S-x-V pattern in Tatian Intervening phrase adverbial

No.

%

34

   72.3%

(in that: tho)

(17)

   (36.2%)

(in that: uuarlihho)

  (6)

   (12.8%)

(in that: prepositional phrase)

  (5)

   (10.6%)

(in that: other light adverbs)

  (3)

    (6.4%)

(in that: other)

  (3)

    (6.4%)

pronominal object

 1

    2.1%

nominal object

 7

   14.9%

non-finite verb

 5

   10.6%

Total

47

100%

The dominant intervening phrase is the adverb tho, as in (79); uuarlihho is also quite frequently used, as in (80). There are also nominal objects, as in (81), and non-finite verb forms, as in (82). (79) Her thó uuas in themo skefe (Tatian, cl. 2076) he then was in the ship   ‘He was then on the ship’  (Mc 4:38) (80) Ther kneht uuârlicho vvuohs (Tatian, cl. 561) the boy truly grew   ‘Truly the boy grew’  (Lk 1:80) (81) Iohannes giuuizscaf saget fon imo (Tatian, cl. 650) John testimony-ACC says of him   ‘John bears witness of him’  (Jn 1:15)



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

(82) Thaz algaro gitan ist (Tatian, cl. 321) that all done is   ‘All this is done’  (Mt 1:22)

It must be noted, though, that many instances of the S-x-V pattern found in this text are modelled on Latin, as shown in section 3.8. Isidor: In Isidor, the S-x-V pattern shows hardly any lexical or syntactic regularities, as shown in Table 26. Table 26.  Intervening phrases in the S-x-V pattern in Isidor. Intervening phrase

No.

%

adverbial

13

68.4%

  (2)

(10.5%)

(in that: chiuuisso) (in that: light adverbs)

  (5)

(26.3%)

(in that: other)

  (6)

(31.6%)

prepositional object

 1

  5.3%

nominal object

 1

  5.3%

nominal object + adverbials

 1

  5.3%

pronominal object

 1

  5.3%

non-finite verb

 1

  5.3%

reflexive

 1

  5.3%

Total

19

  100%

The most frequent intervening phrases are adverbials, as in (83). Objects are also found in this context, both pronominal, as in (84), and nominal, as in (85); light adverbs are relatively well represented, too, as in (86). (83) Dhiu chiuuisso ist bighin gotes sunes (Isidor, cl. 90) this truly is beginning god’s son’s   ‘This truly is the origin of the son of God’ (84) ih inan infahu (Isidor, cl. 365) I him-ACC receive   ‘I shall receive him’ (85) Isaias auh offonor den selbun sunu fona fater gaboranan Isaiah also openly the same son-ACC from father born gafestinota (Isidor, cl. 19–20) confirmed   ‘Isaiah also confirmed the existence of the son born of the father’



87

88

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(86) Got dhuo setzida inan in sn paradisi (Isidor, cl. 551) God then placed him-ACC in his paradise   ‘Then God placed man in paradise’

In Isidor, just like in Bede, the finite verb is sometimes placed at the very end of the clause, as in (85), which suggests Latinate syntax and is discussed in section 3.8 below.15 To sum up, it has to be noted that in all the translations except Genesis, the intervening phrases are not only the expected clause elements, i.e. sentence adverbs and pronominal objects, but also nominal objects or complements, and extensive combinations of adverbials. Many of these follow the order of the source text, which makes their native character questionable, as shown in the following section. 3.8 Relation to Latin The last, but definitely not least, factor which may have had an influence on the choice between V-2 and V-late is the syntax of the Latin clauses in the source texts. This section shows the results of a comparison of source and target clauses, with a division between pronominal and nominal subjects in patterns with a clauseinitial element other than subject, i.e. x-V-S and x-S-V. The division of clauses into following or modifying Latin is based on the relative position of the subject and the finite verb in the source clause. When the Latin clause has no overt subject or no expressed finite verb, or when the relative order of the two elements is different from the target order (e.g. S-V as opposed to V-S, irrespective of any preceding or intervening phrases), the clause is treated as modifying the original order. If both elements are expressed in the Latin and they have the same order as in the target clause (again, irrespective of any preceding or intervening elements), the clause is treated as following Latin. Naturally, the addition of an overt subject in an OE/OHG clause is rather expected in a translation from Latin, which is a pro-drop language, meaning null subjects are very frequent in our source texts. Nonetheless, the translators did have a choice as to the position of the inserted subject, which could be placed pre- or post-verbally. This choice of position is of crucial importance for the V-2 phenomenon. For this reason, addition of a (mostly pronominal) subject is counted as a modification throughout the section.

15.  The S-x-V pattern is not used in Physiologus and therefore this translation is not discussed in this section.

Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 89



Genesis: In Genesis, as presented in Table 27, both V-2 and V-late clauses are mostly independent of the Latin source text. Table 27.  Relation to Latin in V-2 and V-late clauses in Genesis. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

V-2

142 (39.7%)

216 (60.3%)

358

V-late

  32 (17.6%)

150 (82.4%)

182

Rather surprisingly, it is the expected V-2 pattern which shows a higher degree of correspondence to the Latin. Table 28 shows a further subdivision of element order patterns and modification types in V-2 clauses. Table 28.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 clauses in Genesis. Order

Following Latin

Added S

Added V

Reversed S-V order

Free translation

Total

S-V

  81

31.9%

78

30.7%

15

5.9%

64

25.2%

16

6.3%

254

x-V-SPRON

   0

  0.0%

20

90.9%

 0

0.0%

 0

  0.0%

 2

9.1%

  22

x-V-SNOM

  61

74.4%

 9

11.0%

 1

1.2%

 9

11.0%

 2

2.4%

  82

Total V-2

142

39.7%

107

29.9%

16

4.5%

73

20.4%

20

5.6%

358

One of the typical orders of main declarative clauses, S-V, in 32% of cases follows the original order, as in (87), but in most clauses, there is some modification involved: most often a subject pronoun or a full nominal subject is added, as in (88), or the Latin V-S order is reversed, as in (89). (87) ic fare butan bearnum (OE Genesis, cl. 922) I go without children   ego vadam absque liberis (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1113) I go-FUT without children   ‘I shall go without children’  (Gen 15:2) þa ut (OE Genesis, cl. 930) (88) God lædde hyne God led him-ACC then out   eduxitque eum foras (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1123) led-3SG-and him-ACC out   ‘And he [God] led him then away’  (Gen 15:5)

90 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(89) God clypode ða Adam (OE Genesis, cl. 235) God called then Adam   vocavitque Dominus Deus Adam (Lat. Genesis, cl. 232) Adam   called-and Lord God ‘And then God called Adam’  (Gen 3:9)

What is more, it is clear that inversion of subject pronouns (x-V-SPRON) is mostly independent and the main modification is the addition of an overt subject, as in (90). (90) ða wearð he druncen (OE Genesis, cl. 662) then was he drunk   inebriatus est (Lat. Genesis, cl. 722) drunk was-3SG   ‘Then he was drunk’  (Gen 9:21)

The x-V-S pattern with a nominal subject corresponds to the Latin V-S in almost 75% of cases, though the original Latin order is exactly x-V-S in only 7 clauses, as in (91). In the majority of cases (54 clauses), the Latin follows the V-1 order, as in (92). By providing an initial inverting element, the translator was able to retain the V-S order of the original clause without using the generally marked V-1 order. When modifications occur, they mostly involve the addition of subjects, as in (93); or a change from S-V to x-V-S, i.e. inversion against the original order, as in (94). (91) ðreohund fæðma bið se arc on lenge (OE Genesis, cl. 485) three hundred cubits is the ark on length   trecentorum cubitorum erit longitudo arcae (Lat. Genesis, cl. 517) three hundred cubits is-FUT length ark’s   ‘The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits’  (Gen 6:15)



(92) Þa cwæð se wicnere (OE Genesis, cl. 1668) then said the servant   respondit servus (Lat. Genesis, cl. 2013) answered servant   ‘The servant answered’  (Gen 24:5)

(OE Genesis, cl. 1292) (93) Þa cwædon þa englas to Lothe the angels to Lot   then said dixerunt autem ad Loth (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1533) said-3PL also to Lot   ‘And the angels said to Lot’  (Gen 19:2)



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

(94) On ðære tide wunedon Chananeus & Ferezeus on the time dwelled Chanaanite and Pherezite on ðam lande (OE Genesis, cl. 821) on the land   eo autem tempore Chananeus et Ferezeus habitabant this also time Chanaanite and Pherezite dwelled in illa terra (Lat. Genesis, cl. 984) in this land   ‘And at that time the Chanaanite and the Pherezite dwelled in that country’  (Gen 13:7)

Table 29 shows a similar subdivision for V-late clauses in Genesis. Table 29.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-late clauses in Genesis. Order

Following Latin

Added S

Added V

Reversed S-V order

Free translation

Total

x-SPRON-V

 3

  5.3%

49

86.0%

0

  0.0%

 1

  1.8%

 4

  7.0%

  57

x-SNOM-V

12

48.0%

 2

  8.0%

0

  0.0%

11

44.0%

 0

  0.0%

  25

x-x-V-SNOM

 5

50.0%

 0

  0.0%

 1

10.0%

 3

30.0%

 1

10.0%

  10

S-x-V

12

13.3%

18

20.0%

0

  0.0%

50

55.6%

10

11.1%

  90

Total V-late

32

17.6%

69

37.9%

1

  0.5%

65

35.7%

15

  8.2%

182

It is clear that lack of inversion of pronominal subjects is independent of the Latin source and the main modification type is the provision of an overt subject, as in (95). (95) Æfter ðam he gestrynde suna & dohtra (OE Genesis, cl. 399) after that he begot sons and daughters   (Lat. Genesis, cl. 420) et genuit filios et filias and begot sons and daughters   ‘And later he begot sons and daughters’  (Gen 5:10)

The x-S-V pattern with a nominal subject follows the Latin in 48% of cases (note, however, that the absolute numbers are rather low since the pattern is quite infrequent in Genesis). In 8 clauses, the Latin uses exactly the same order with a clause-initial element, as in (96), whereas in 4 Latin clauses, the subject is the clause-initial constituent, as in (97), though the whole clause is not a calque, as it combines information from two source clauses. Modifications mostly change the Latin V-initial V-S pattern into x-S-V, and in 7 out of these 11 clauses the Latin follows the pattern V-autem-S, as in (98).

91

92

Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(96) Soðlice Enoch gestrynde Irad (OE Genesis, cl. 367) truly Enoch begot Irad   porro Enoch genuit Irad (Lat. Genesis, cl. 364) hereafter Enoch begot Irad   ‘Truly hereafter Henoch begot Irad’  (Gen 4:18)

(97) Soðlice Adam gestrynde Cain be Euan his gemæccan (OE Genesis, cl. 303) truly Adam begot Cain by Eve his wife   ‘Truly Adam begot Cain with Eve, his wife’ Adam vero cognovit Havam uxorem suam quae concepit et peperit who conceived and bore Adam truly knew Eve wife his Cain (Lat. Genesis, cl. 299–301) Cain   ‘Adam truly knew Eve his wife who conceived and brought forth Cain’  (Gen 4:1) (OE Genesis, cl. 722) (98) Soðlice Abram & Nachor wifodon truly Abram and Nachor married   duxerunt autem Abram et Nahor uxores (Lat. Genesis, cl. 874) married then Abram and Nachor wives   ‘Truly then Abram and Nachor married wives’  (Gen 11:29)

The x-x-V-S pattern is not used with subject pronouns at all, and for nominal subjects it is too infrequent to offer any generalisations, but it should be noted that it depends on the source text just as often as it is used independently. Finally, the S-x-V pattern predominantly modifies the original element order. Most modifications involve changing the Latin V-(x)-S order into S-x-V; in 9 Latin clauses the initial verb is immediately followed by the subject, as in (99), whereas in 36 cases, there is an intervening phrase (autem, itaque, ergo, igitur, inde, vero or a pronominal object) or and intervening morpheme (-que) in the Latin, as in (100) and (101). All the intervening adverbs and -que were translated as þa or soþlice; apparently, these two OE adverbs were treated as equivalents of many different Latin words. On the whole, it turns out that the main source of the OE S-x-V pattern in Genesis is the Latin V-x-S pattern. (OE Genesis, cl. 1104) (99) God þa astah up fram Abrahame God then stood up from Abraham   ascendit Deus ab Abraham (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1309) rose God from Abraham   ‘God went up from Abraham’  (Gen 17:22)



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

(100) Adam ða cwæð (OE Genesis, cl. 188) Adam then said   dixitque Adam (Lat. Genesis, cl. 189) said-and Adam   ‘And Adam said’  (Gen 2:23)

(101) Noe ða leofode ðreohund geara & fiftig geara Noe then lived three hundred years and fifty years æfter ðam flode (OE Genesis, cl. 683) after the flood   vixit autem Noe post diluvium lived then Noe after flood trecentis quinquaginta annis (Lat. Genesis, cl. 745) three hundred fifty years   ‘And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years’  (Gen 9:28)

Summing up, all the patterns used with pronominal subjects show a high degree of independence, while the position of nominal subjects depends on the source text more often. This difference is related to the high frequency of null subjects in the Latin; overt subjects were provided by the translator, and their position, as a result, is naturally more independent. Nominal subjects usually have their Latin equivalents but their position is quite often changed. Therefore, V-late clauses with nominal subjects are relatively independent of the source text, which points to the native character of the structure. What is more, most clauses with an intervening phrase are modelled on the Latin V-x-S clauses, which shows that they were restructured during the translation process. On the whole, the order of nonconjunct main declarative clauses in Genesis seems relatively free of Latin influence, i.e. the original order was followed by the translator only when native rules of syntax allowed it. Bede: In Bede, unlike in Genesis, clauses following the V-2 order are mostly independent of the Latin, while V-late clauses depend on the source text to a greater degree, as shown in Table 30. Table 30.  Relation to Latin in V-2 and V-late clauses in Bede. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

V-2

50 (25.6%)

145 (74.4%)

195

V-late

73 (51.0%)

  70 (49.0%)

143

The degree of dependence of specific element order patterns seems to rely mostly on subject type, with patterns with subject pronouns coming across as considerably more independent, cf. Table 31 and 32.

93

94 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 31.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 and V-late clauses in Bede. Order

Following Latin

Overt S

Added V

S-V

25

32.5%

18

23.4%

 9

x-V-SPRON

 2

  3.4%

42

71.2%

 0

Reversed S-V order

Free translation

Total

11.7%

 4

  5.2%

21

27.3%

  77

  0.0%

11

18.6%

 4

  6.8%

  59

x-V-SNOM

23

39.0%

10

16.9%

 3

  5.1%

15

25.4%

 8

13.6%

  59

Total V-2

50

25.6%

70

35.9%

12

  6.2%

30

15.4%

33

16.9%

195

The S-V pattern follows the original in 32% of cases, as in (102). Modifications are mostly related to the addition of subjects, usually pronominal, as in (103), or free translations, as in (104). (102) sum eorðlic æ in þære Romaniscan cynnewisan some earthly law in the Roman state forlæteð (OE Bede, cl. 1091) allows   Quaedam terrena lex in Romana repuplica permittit (Lat. Bede, cl. 1282) certain earthly law in Roman republic allows   ‘An earthly law in the Roman commonwealth allows’

(103) Hit hafað eac þis land sealtseaþas (OE Bede, cl. 20) it has also this land salt-pits   Habet fontes salinarum (Lat. Bede, cl. 33) has-3SG salt-pits   ‘The land also has salt-pits’

(104) þæs nama wæs Leodheard (OE Bede, cl. 798) this-GEN name was Leodheard   … nomine Liudhardo … (Lat. Bede, cl. 1017) name-ABL Leodhard-ABL   ‘his name was Leodheard’

The x-V-S pattern with pronominal subjects is modelled on the Latin in 2 cases only, as in (105). Other clauses are modifications, which mostly contain subjects added by the translator, as in (106). (105) ða ongunnon heo (OE Bede, cl. 693) then began they   coeperunt et illi (Lat. Bede, cl. 906) began and these   ‘and they began’



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

(106) Ða het he hraðe (OE Bede, cl. 198) then ordered he soon   Unde statim iussit (Lat. Bede, cl. 336) from where immediately ordered-3SG   ‘Then he ordered’

Inversion of nominal subjects corresponds to a similar Latin order more often. There are 23 x-V-SNOM clauses which follow the original, as in (107). In 14 cases, the Latin uses the V-1 order and the inverting phrase is placed at the beginning by the translator, as in (108). The most frequent modification is a change from the Latin S-V, as in (109). (107) Her resteð domne Agustinus se æresta ærcebiscop here rests reverend Augustine the first archbishop Contwarena burge (OE Bede, cl. 2048) Canterbury town’s   ‘Hic requiescit domnus Augustinus Doruuernensis reverend Augustine Canterbury’s here rests archiepiscopus primus (Lat. Bede, cl. 2274) archbishop first   ‘Here rests the reverend Augustine, the first archbishop of Canterbury’

(108) Æfter Agustini fyligde in biscophade Laurentius (OE Bede, cl. 2054) after Augustine followed in episcopate Laurentius   Successit Augustino in episcopatum Laurentius (Lat. Bede, cl. 2281) succeeded Augustine in episcopate Laurentius   ‘Laurentius succeeded Augustine as bishop’



(109) Þa ondetton eac Brettas (OE Bede, cl. 1882) then acknowledged also Britons   (Lat. Bede, cl. 2095) Tum Brettones confitentur then Britons acknowledged   ‘Then the Britons acknowledged’

Table 32 shows the results of the analysis for V-late clauses.

95

96 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 32.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-late clauses in Bede. Order

Following Latin

Added S

Added V

Reversed S-V order

Free translation

x-SPRON-V

 5

12.5%

26

65.0%

2

x-SNOM-V

45

84.9%

 3

  5.7%

x-x-V-SNOM

 6

40.0%

 0

x-x-V-SPRON

 0

  0.0%

 1

S-x-V

17

51.5%

Total V-late

73

51.0%

Total

5.0%

 2

  5.0%

 5

12.5%

  40

1

1.9%

 1

  1.9%

 3

  5.7%

  53

  0.0%

1

6.7%

 8

53.3%

 0

  0.0%

  15

50.0%

0

0.0%

 0

  0.0%

 1

50.0%

   2

13

39.4%

1

3.0%

 1

  3.0%

 1

  3.0%

  33

43

30.1%

5

3.5%

12

  8.4%

10

  7.0%

143

The x-S-V pattern with subject pronouns is modelled on the Latin in only 5 clauses, but all the translated clauses contain some minor changes. For example, in (110), the original subject is nominal and other clause constituents are rearranged in the target clause. The most common modification involves the addition of overt subjects, as in (111). (110) Þone Iustum he in Cent sylfre to biscope gehalgode the Justus-ACC he in Kent itself to bishop consecrated to Hrofesceastre (OE Bede, cl. 2025) to Rochester   Iustum uero in ipsa Cantia Augustinus episcopum ordinauit Justus-ACC truly in this Kent Augustinus bishop consecrated in ciuitate Dorubreui (Lat. Bede, cl. 2249) in city Rochester   ‘He consecrated Justus as bishop at Rochester in Kent itself ’

(111) Earmra hungur he oferswiðde mid mettum (OE Bede, cl. 1737) poor’s hunger-ACC he overcame with food   Esuriem dapibus superauit (Lat. Bede, cl. 1963) hunger-ACC food-ABL overcame-3SG   ‘The hunger of the poor he overcame with food’



The most striking result is that 85% of clauses without nominal inversion (x-SNOMV) follow the Latin order, including all the clauses in which þa is followed by the subject, as in (112), though in 4 cases the Latin does not contain a model for þa, cf. (112) and (113). (112) þa Sanctus Albanus for ðam cuman, þe he gefeormade, gegyrede hine then St. Alban for the stranger who he received dressed REFL ða his munucgegyrelan (OE Bede, cl. 202–203) then his monk dress   ‘Then St. Alban put on the monk’s dress for the stranger, whom he received’



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon

mox se sanctus Albanus pro hospite ac magistro suo, ipsius habitu, soon REFL St. Alban for guest and teacher his his dress-ABL id est caracalla, qua uestiebatur, indutus, militibus that is tunic which wore dressed soldiers-DAT exhibuit (Lat. Bede, cl. 339–342) showed   ‘Soon St. Alban showed himself to soldiers, dressed for his guest and teacher in his robe, that is tunic, which he wore’ (113) þa se halga fæder Agustinus þisses gewinnesfullan geflites ende then the holy father Augustine this wearisome conflict’s end gesette (OE Bede, cl. 1852) put   sanctus pater Augustinus hunc laboriosi ac longi certaminis finem saint father Augustine that wearisome and long conflict’s end fecit (Lat. Bede, cl. 2067) made   ‘Then the holy father Augustine put an end to this wearisome conflict’

Both x-x-V-SNOM and x-x-V-SPRON patterns are used rather independently; the most frequent modification is the reversed order of the nominal subject and finite verb. Nonetheless, the patterns are quite rare and, therefore, the results are rather difficult to interpret. Finally, the S-x-V order follows the original in ca. 50% of cases, as in (114), and 13 modifications are related to the introduction of an overt subject, so they are rather close to the source text, as in (115). In fact, as many as 23 S-x-V clauses have a V-final Latin equivalent, which means that even in clauses which were counted as modifications (because of the addition of an overt subject in the translation), the whole sequence of intervening phrases is placed before the verb following the Latin order. (114) sume ofer sæ sarigende gewiton (OE Bede, cl. 684–685) some over sea mourning departed   alii transmarinas regiones dolentes petebant (Lat. Bede, cl. 898–899) others oversea regions aching made for   ‘Some in sorrow went beyond the sea’

(115) hwæt we þonne þæt seolfe sar & wiite hire in synne what we then the same pain and punishment her in sin tellað (OE Bede, cl. 1263) tell   ipsam ei poenam suam in culpam deputamus (Lat. Bede, cl. 1484) same her punishment her in sin regard-1PL  



97

98 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

‘Lo, we then regard this pain and punishment as her sin’

On the whole, the patterns containing an overt pronominal subject in Bede seem highly independent of the Latin, like in Genesis, but V-late clauses with nominal subjects (both those showing lack of inversion and those containing intervening phrases) show a high degree of correspondence with the Latin source. Thus, it seems reasonable to question the native character of these patterns in the translation, or at least their high frequency. The V-2 phenomenon observed in Bede seems to be moderately influenced by the source text, as most cases of atypical patterns (including lack of inversion after the clause-initial þa) are the result of foreign transfer. Luke: In Luke, both V-2 and V-late clauses mostly modify the original Latin order, as shown in Table 33. Table 33.  Relation to Latin in V-2 and V-late clauses in Luke. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

V-2

136 (36.9%)

233 (63.1%)

369

V-late

  42 (31.6%)

  91 (68.4%)

133

However, a more detailed subdivision of element order patterns reveals that the degree of dependence is different for each of the sub-patterns, as shown in Table 34. Table 34.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 clauses in Luke. Order

Following Latin

Added S

Added V

Reversed S-V order

Free translation

Total

S-V

  44 32.4%   67 49.3%

2

1.5%

18

13.2%

5

3.7%

136

x-V-SPRON

   6   5.3%   81 71.7%

0

0.0%

26

23.0%

0

0.0%

113

x-V-SNOM

  86 71.7%    8   6.7%

3

2.5%

23

19.2%

0

0.0%

120

Total V-2

136 36.9% 156 42.3%

5

1.4%

67

18.2%

5

1.4%

369

The S-V order follows Latin in ca. 32% of clauses, as in (116). As in the previous translations, adding a subject pronoun to the original is the main type of modification, as in (117). (116) Ða fisceras eodun (OE Luke, cl. 641) the fishermen went   (Lat. Luke, cl. 721) piscatores autem descenderant   fishermen also went ‘The fishermen went’  (Lk 5:2)



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 99

(117) ic geseah Satanan (OE Luke, cl. 1848) I saw Satan-ACC   videbam Satanan (Lat. Luke, cl. 1978) saw-1SG Satan-ACC   ‘I saw Satan’  (Lk 10:18)

Pronominal inversion (x-V-SPRON), which is predominantly caused by the clauseinitial þa, follows the Latin V-S order in 6 clauses only, as in (118). All the other clauses are modifications: they are mostly additions of an overt subject, as in (119), but there are also 26 changes from the Latin S-V to V-S, as in (120). (118) Ða cwæð oðer (OE Luke, cl. 1777) then said other   et ait alter (Lat. Luke, cl. 1906) and said other   ‘And another said’  (Lk 9:61)

(119) Þa sæde he him an bigspell (OE Luke, cl. 799) then said he them a similitude   dicebat autem et similitudinem ad illos (Lat. Luke, cl. 882) said-3SG also and similitude to them   ‘And he said also a similitude to them:’  (Lk 5:36)

(120) Ða cwæþ he to him (OE Luke, cl. 1885) then said he to him   at ille dixit ad eum (Lat. Luke, cl. 2018) and he said to him   ‘And he said to him’  (Lk 10:26)

When it comes to nominal subjects, the degree of correspondence rises. Inversions of nominal subjects (x-V-S) mostly follow the Latin V-S order; 81 of these are V-1, as in (121), and only 5 are x-V-S, as in (122). The modifications mainly involve changes from S-V to V-S, as in (123). (121) Ða ahsode se Hælend hine (OE Luke, cl. 1392) then asked the Saviour him-ACC   interrogavit autem illum Iesus (Lat. Luke, cl. 1497) asked also him Jesus   ‘Then Jesus asked him’  (Lk 8:30)

100 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(122) ða ætstod sona þæs blodes ryne (OE Luke, cl. 1460) then stopped soon the blood’s flow   et confestim stetit fluxus sanguinis eius (Lat. Luke, cl. 1569) and immediately stopped flow blood’s her   ‘And then immediately the flow of her blood stopped’  (Lk 8:44)

(123) Þa cyddun him ða apostolas (OE Luke, cl. 1551) then told him the apostles   (Lat. Luke, cl. 1664) apostoli narraverunt illi him   apostles told ‘And the apostles told him’  (Lk 9:10)

Table 35 shows how often the V-late clauses in Luke deviate from the original Latin order. Table 35.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 and V-late clauses in Luke. Order

Following Latin

Added S

Added V

Reversed S-V order

Free ranslation

Total

x-SPRON-V

 5

  9.3%

46

85.2%

0

0.0%

 2

  3.7%

1

1.9%

  54

x-SNOM-V

13

41.9%

 0

  0.0%

2

6.5%

15

48.4%

1

3.2%

  31

x-x-V-SNOM

 5

83.3%

 0

  0.0%

0

0.0%

 1

16.7%

0

0.0%

   6

S-x-V

19

45.2%

15

35.7%

0

0.0%

 8

19.0%

0

0.0%

  42

Total V-late

42

31.6%

61

45.9%

2

1.5%

26

19.5%

2

1.5%

133

Lack of inversion of subject pronouns follows Latin in 5 clauses only, as in (124). The modifications are mostly additions of an overt subject, as in (125). (124) Witodlice ic eow on wætere fullige (OE Luke, cl. 442) truly I you-ACC on water baptise   ego quidem aqua baptizo vos (Lat. Luke, cl. 448) I indeed water-ABL baptize you   ‘I indeed baptise you with water’  (Lk 3:16) (125) Soðlice hit wæs geworden (OE Luke, cl. 1935) truly it was made   factum est autem (Lat. Luke, cl. 2071) made was also   ‘Then it came to pass’  (Lk 10:38)

Lack of nominal inversion corresponds to the Latin S-V in (only) 42% of cases, and they are not word for word translations, as in (126). Modifications involve mostly changes from the Latin x-V-S, as in (127), or V-x-S, as in (128).



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 101

(126) Soþlice se cnapa weox (OE Luke, cl. 220) truly the boy grew   puer autem crescebat (Lat. Luke, cl. 225) boy also grew   ‘Truly the boy grew’  (Lk 1:80)

(127) Soðlice æfter þissum þingum hyra fæderas dydon truly after these things their fathers did þam witegum (OE Luke, cl. 909) the prophets-DAT   secundum haec enim faciebant prophetis prophets-DAT after these indeed did patres eorum (Lat. Luke, cl. 994) fathers their   ‘Indeed their fathers did to the prophets accordingly’  (Lk 6:23)

(128) Soþlice Iohannes com se fulluhtere (OE Luke, cl. 1174) truly John came the baptist   venit enim Iohannes Baptista (Lat. Luke, cl. 1264) came also John Baptist   ‘John the Baptist came’  (Lk 7:33)

The x-x-V-SNOM pattern depends on the source text to a great degree, but its frequency is too low to risk any generalisations (similarly to the situation in Genesis and Bede). The S-x-V pattern coincides with the Latin S-x-V in only 9 clauses, as in (129). In 10 clauses classified as following Latin (since the relative order of the subject and the finite verb is the same), the source text follows the S-V pattern and the position of the intervening phrase is changed by the translator, as in (130). The most frequent modification is subject addition, as in (131). What is more, within clauses with an added subject, the position of the intervening phrase is modified, as in (132), in 13 out of 15 cases; therefore, this element order pattern comes across as very independent. (129) He eow fullað on halgum gaste & on fyre (OE Luke, cl. 446) he you baptises on holy ghost and on fire   ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu Sancto et igni (Lat. Luke, cl. 452) he you baptizes in ghost holy and fire   ‘He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire’  (Lk 3:16)

102 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(130) Drihten deofolseocnessa us synt on þinum naman lord devils us are on your name underþeodde (OE Luke, cl. 1846) subject   Domine etiam daemonia subiciuntur nobis lord indeed demons subject-PASS us in nomine tuo (Lat. Luke, cl. 1976) in name yours   ‘Lord, the devils also are subject to us in your name’  (Lk 10:17)

(OE Luke, cl. 452) (131) he þæt folc lærde he the people taught   evangelizabat populum (Lat. Luke, cl. 458) preached people   ‘He preached to the people’  (Lk 3:18)



(132) Ic eow secge (OE Luke, cl. 1827) I you say   dico vobis (Lat. Luke, cl. 1956) say-1SG you   ‘I say to you’  (Lk 10:12)

In short, in Luke, just like in Genesis and Bede, the patterns comprising pronominal subjects are unambiguously native and free of Latin influence, while the order of V-late clauses with nominal subjects is, to some extent, dependent on Latin. However, because Luke is so dominated by þa and, therefore, lack of inversion is so rare in this text, it is in many cases difficult to trace Latin interference. This, rather surprisingly, makes both OE biblical translations more independent of Latin than Bede. Tatian: In Tatian, both V-2 and V-late clauses are clearly dependent on the source text, but V-late orderings are especially rarely used independently of Latin, cf. Table 36. Table 36.  Relation to Latin in V-2 and V-late clauses in Tatian. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

V-2

273 (59.1%)

189 (40.9%)

462

V-late

  77 (88.5%)

  10 (11.5%)

  87

Tables 37 and 38 show striking differences in the level of dependence of patterns with pronominal vs. nominal subjects in Tatian.

Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 103



Table 37.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 clauses in Tatian. Order

Following Latin

Added S

Added V

Reversed S-V order

Total

S-V

162

61.8%

  90

34.4%

 7

2.7%

 3

1.1%

262

x-V-SPRON

   5

  6.3%

  70

88.6%

 0

0.0%

 4

5.1%

  79

x-V-SNOM

106

87.6%

   0

  0.0%

 3

2.5%

12

9.9%

121

Total V-2

273

59.1%

160

34.6%

10

2.2%

19

4.1%

462

The S-V pattern follows Latin in ca. 62% of clauses, though only in 58 out of 162 cases is the Latin clause also V-2, as in (133). In the majority of cases, the position of other constituents is changed, as in (134). Similarly to the other translations, modifications are mostly additions of an overt subject, as in (135). (133) thie heilago geist quimit ubar thih (OHG Tatian, cl. 119) the holy ghost came over you-SG   spiritus sanctus superveniet in te (Lat. Tatian, cl. 120) ghost holy came in you-SG   ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon you’  (Lk 1:35)

(134) Maria gicós thaz bezista teil (OHG Tatian, cl. 2586) Mary choose the best part   Maria optimam partem elegit (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2543) Mary best part chose   ‘Mary has chosen the best part’  (Lk 10:42)

(135) iz ist giscriban (OHG Tatian, cl. 813) it is written   scriptum est (Lat. Tatian, cl. 806) written is   ‘It is written’  (Mt 4:4)



Only 5 x-V-SPRON clauses are modelled on the Latin, as in (136). The modifications are mostly additions of an overt subject, as in (137), but there are also 4 changes from S-V to V-S, as in (138), which is especially interesting since Tatian generally follows its source text closely. (136) Tho quad imo sum (OHG Tatian, cl. 2370) then told him some   Dixit autem ei quidam (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2329) told also him some   ‘Then someone said to him’  (Mt 12:47)

104 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(137) thanne uuirdu ih heil (OHG Tatian, cl. 2406) then become I whole   salva ero (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2365) healed am-FUT   ‘I shall be whole’  (Mk 5:28)

(138) Then quad hér (OHG Tatian, cl. 2293) this-DAT said he   (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2253) Quibus ipse ait whom he said   ‘To this one he said’  (Lk 5:34)

On the other hand, the x-V-SNOM pattern predominantly follows the Latin V-S, though in 71 cases, the Latin clause is V-1, as in (139). Only in 35 clauses is the Latin order also V-2, as in (140). Almost all the modifications are changes from S-(x)-V to x-V-S, as in (141). (139) Thó quad imo Nathanahel (OHG Tatian, cl. 902) then told him Nathanael   Dicit ei Nathanahel (Lat. Tatian, cl. 895) told him Nathanael   ‘Nathanael said to him:’  (Jn 1:48)

(140) thô furliez in ther diuual zi sihuueliheru zîti (OHG Tatian, cl. 841) then left him the devil to some time   tunc reliquit eum diabolus usque ad tempus (Lat. Tatian, cl. 834) then left him devil up to time   ‘Then the devil left him for a time’  (Lk 4:13)



(141) thanne ist al thin lihhamo liohter (OHG Tatian, cl. 1499) then is all your body lightsome   totum corpus tuum lucidum erit (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1473) all body yours lightsome is-FUT   ‘Your whole body shall be lightsome’  (Mt 6:22)

Table 38 clearly shows that V-late clauses are very dependent on the source text order.

Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 105



Table 38.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-late clauses in Tatian. Order

Following Latin

Added S

Reversed S-V order

Total

x-SPRON-V

 5

  62.5%

3

  37.5%

0

  0.0%

 8

x-SNOM-V

19

100.0%

0

   0.0%

0

  0.0%

19

x-x-V-SNOM

 9

  90.0%

0

   0.0%

1

10.0%

10

x-x-V-SPRON

 0

   0.0%

3

100.0%

0

  0.0%

 3

S-x-V

44

  93.6%

3

   6.4%

0

  0.0%

47

Total V-late

77

  88.5%

9

  10.3%

1

  1.1%

87

Uninverted pronominal subjects are very uncommon in Tatian, and they mostly follow Latin, though 3 of these clauses are lexically recurrent, and the position of the adverb is changed, as in (142). (142) Thanne ih quidu íu (OHG Tatian, cl. 1301, 1311, 1332) then I say you-PL.DAT   Ego autem dico vobis (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1284, 1294, 1315) I also say you-PL.DAT   ‘I say to you’  (e.g. Mt 5:44)

It must be emphasised that lack of inversion of nominal subjects is completely modelled on the Latin, as in (143). This clearly proves that the V-2 order in this OHG text is observed more regularly than in the OE translations, and only Latin interference limits its occurrence in clauses with nominal subjects. (143) In thritten tage brútloufti gitano uuarun in third day wedding-PL made were in thero steti (OHG Tatian, cl. 1876) in the town   Et die tertio nuptiæ factę sunt and day third wedding-PL made were in Canan Galileae (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1839) in Cana Galilee’s   ‘And the third day, there was a wedding in the town [Cana of Galilee]’  (Jn 2:1)

It should also be noted that the x-x-V-S pattern with pronominal subjects, infrequent as it is, is mostly independent, while the same order used with nominal subjects follows the source in 90% of cases. S-x-V clauses from Tatian follow the Latin S-V pattern in 7 cases, as in (144). This means that the intervening phrase is provided by the translator without any clear model. However, 37 of S-x-V clauses correspond to the Latin S-x-V, as in (145).

106 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(144) Sie thô quadun imo (OHG Tatian, cl. 470) they then told him   At illi dixerunt ei (Lat. Tatian, cl. 467) and they told him   ‘Then they said to him:’  (Mt 2:5)

(145) Sambaztag thuruh man gitan ist (OHG Tatian, cl. 2819) Sabbath through man made is   (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2770) Sabbatum propter hominem factum est Sabbath for man made is   ‘The Sabbath was made for man’  (Mk 2:27)

In short, even though Tatian is the least free translation in our corpus, there are many modifications introduced by the translators into the OHG text. The syntactic behaviour of subject pronouns is clearly independent of the source text (which is quite natural in a translation from a pro-drop language), and Tatian generally seems to be very consistent in applying the V-2 rule. Most departures from the V-2 order are a direct result of Latin influence; all the clauses in which a nominal subject fails to undergo inversion are modelled on the source text, and most uses of an intervening phrase also follow the original order. Isidor: In the case of Isidor, there is no clear difference in the degree of dependence of V-2 and V-late clauses on the Latin order, as shown in Table 39. Table 39.  Relation to Latin in V-2 and V-late clauses in Isidor. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

V-2

60 (54.1%)

51 (45.9%)

111

V-late

28 (49.1%)

29 (50.9%)

  57

However, just like in the other translations, patterns with pronominal subjects are very independent of the source text, while with other patterns, the degree of dependence varies, cf. Table 40. Table 40.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 clauses in Isidor. Order

Following Latin

Added S

Added V

Reversed S-V order

Free translation

Total

S-V

40

65.6%

12

19.7%

5

8.2%

 4

  6.6%

0

  0.0%

  61

x-V-SPRON

 0

  0.0%

 9

81.8%

0

0.0%

 0

  0.0%

2

18.2%

  11

x-V-SNOM

20

51.3%

 4

10.3%

0

0.0%

14

35.9%

1

  2.6%

  39

Total V-2

60

54.1%

25

22.5%

5

4.5%

18

16.2%

3

  2.7%

111



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 107

The S-V pattern mostly follows the original, as in (146). The most common modifications is the addition of an overt subject, as in (147). (146) allo dheodun lobont inan (OHG Isidor, cl. 639) all people praise him-ACC   omnes gentes magnificabunt eum (Lat. Isidor, cl. 722) all people praise him-ACC   ‘All people praise him’

(OHG Isidor, cl. 368) (147) Ih gab ubar inan minan gheist   I gave over him my ghost dedi spiritum meum super eum (Lat. Isidor, cl. 460) gave-1SG spirit mine over him   ‘I have given my spirit upon him’



All pronominal inversions (x-V-SPRON) are independent of the Latin: in most cases, an overt subject is added, as in (148). (148) dhar uuas ih (OHG Isidor, cl. 60) there was I   aderam (Lat. Isidor, cl. 162) was-1SG   ‘I was there’

Nominal inversions follow Latin in ca. 50% of cases, 7 clauses are V-1 in Latin, as in (149), and the remaining 13 are x-V-S, as in (150). The modifications are mostly changes from S-V to x-V-S, as in (151). (149) Sus quhad dher gomo, adhalsangheri israhelo, so said the man psalmist israel’s umbi christan iacobes got (OHG Isidor, cl. 210) about christ jacob’s god   Dixit uir, de christo dei iacob, egregius psalta israhel (Lat. Isidor, cl. 303) said man of christ god jacob’s great psalmist israel’s   ‘So said the man, the great psalmist of Israel, about Christ, the God of Jacob’

(150) folliu ist al ęrdha dhinera guotliihhin (OHG Isidor, cl. 401) full is all earth your glory’s   plena est omnis terra gloria eius (Lat. Isidor, cl. 491) full is all earth glory yours   ‘The earth is full of your glory’

108 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(151) Azs erist uuardh iesuses namo fundan at first was Jesus’ name found in bauhnungum unseres druhtines iesus christus (OHG Isidor, cl. 590) in form our lord’s Jesus Christ   Prima enim appellatio nominis iesu inuenitur firstly indeed name name’s Jesus’ found-PASS in figura domini nostri iesu christi (Lat. Isidor, cl. 670) in figure our lord’s Jesus Christ   ‘For the first time the name of Jesus was found in the figure of our Lord, Jesus Christ’

The degree of dependence of V-late clauses on the original order varies depending on the pattern, as shown in Table 41. Table 41.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-late clauses in Isidor. Order

Following Latin

Added S

Added V

Reversed S-V order

Total

x-SPRON-V

 2

22.2%

 7

  77.8%

0

0.0%

 0

  0.0%

 9

x-SNOM-V

 6

50.0%

 1

   8.3%

1

8.3%

 4

33.3%

12

x-x-V-SNOM

 5

33.3%

 3

  20.0%

1

6.7%

 6

40.0%

15

x-x-V-SPRON

 0

  0.0%

 2

100.0%

0

0.0%

 0

  0.0%

 2

S-x-V

15

78.9%

 3

  15.8%

1

5.3%

 0

  0.0%

19

Total V-late

28

49.1%

16

  28.1%

3

5.3%

10

17.5%

57

Two clauses lacking pronominal inversion (x-S-V) follow the Latin S-V order, as in (152). All the modifications contain an added subject, as in (153). (152) So ir selbo quhad dhurah zachariam (OHG Isidor, cl. 217) so he himself said through Zacharias   Ipso dicente in zacharia (Lat. Isidor, cl. 310) he-ABL saying-ABL in Zacharias   ‘So he said himself in the Book of Zacharias’ (153) Erino portun ih firchnussu (OHG Isidor, cl. 138) iron portals I destroy   Portas aereas conteram (Lat. Isidor, cl. 237) portals iron destroy-1SG   ‘I will destroy iron portals’

Lack of nominal inversion follows Latin in exactly half of the cases, as in (154). The modifications are mostly changes from V-S to S-V, as in (155).



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 109

(154) So hear after dher selbo forasago quhad (OHG Isidor, cl. 302) so hear afer the same prophet said   Sic in consequentibus idem propheta ait (Lat. Isidor, cl. 394) so in consequences same prophet said   ‘The same prophet afterwards said thus’

(155) So isaias quhad (OHG Isidor, cl. 425) so Isaiah said   (Lat. Isidor, cl. 511) sic enim de eo praedicat esaias Isaiah   so indeed of him said ‘So said Isaiah’



Both cases of the x-x-V-S pattern with pronominal subjects are independent uses related to the introduction of an overt subject, as in (156). The x-x-V-S pattern with nominal subjects is also mostly independent. (156) ioh fona eristin uuas ih chiholono sprehhendi (OHG Isidor, cl. 354) also from first was I secretly speaking   Nam a principio in abscondito locutus sum (Lat. Isidor, cl. 445) for from beginning in hiding speaking am   ‘I have also spoken in secret from the beginning’

The S-x-V pattern mainly follows the Latin, as in (157). Out of the infrequent modifications, 3 are additions of overt subjects with a modification of the position of the intervening phrase, as in (158). (157) Isaias auh offonor den selbun sunu gafestinota (OHG Isidor, cl. 19) Isaiah also openly the same son confirmed   Esaias autem apertius filium confirmans (Lat. Isidor, cl. 107) Isaiah also openly son confirming   ‘Isaiah also openly confirmed (the existence of) the son’

infahu (OHG Isidor, cl. 365) (158) ih inan I him-ACC receive   suscipiam eum (Lat. Isidor, cl. 457) receive-1SG.FUT him-ACC   ‘I shall receive him’



In sum, the V-late patterns found in Isidor are to some extent dependent on Latin, though lack of pronominal inversion seems fairly independent. It is difficult to generalise the results obtained for pronominal subjects as they are relatively infrequent in the text, but the tendency seems to be similar to the other translations in our corpus.

110 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Physiologus: In Physiologus, all the patterns are independent of Latin, as shown in Table 37. Table 42.  Relation to Latin in subtypes of V-2 clauses in Physiologus. Order

Following Latin

Added S

Added V

Reversed S-V order

Free translation

Total

S-V

13

30.2%

 4

  9.3%

4

9.3%

2

  4.7%

20

46.5%

43

x-V-SPRON

 3

  8.6%

26

74.3%

0

0.0%

0

  0.0%

 6

17.1%

35

x-V-SNOM

 3

15.0%

 3

15.0%

0

0.0%

7

35.0%

 7

35.0%

20

Total V-2

19

19.4%

33

33.7%

4

4.1%

9

  9.2%

33

33.7%

98

There are 13 S-V clauses following Latin, as in (159), though these clauses are usually changed by the translator in some way, even if the position of the subject and the finite verb is the same. The modifications are mostly clauses without a clear source or paraphrases, as in (160). (OHG Phys., cl. 116) (159) Sirenæ sint meremanniu sirens are sea-people   Sirene animalia sunt mortifera (Lat. Phys., cl. 124) sirens animals are deadly   ‘Sirens are dangerous sea-creatures’

(160) Ein tier heizzit igena (OHG Phys., cl. 135) one animal is called hyena   Est et aliud animal, quod graece dicunt hiena (Lat. Phys., cl. 146–147) is and some animal which Greeks call hyena   ‘One animal is called hyena’

The x-V-S pattern with a pronominal subject follows the Latin V-1 in 3 cases only, as in (161). The independent clauses mostly contain added subjects, often with some other interventions of the translator, as in (162). (161) so beginnet ez da mite spilen (OHG Phys., cl. 196–197) so begins it this with play   Incipit autem et animal illud ludere begins also and animal that play cum virgulis istis (Lat. Phys., cl. 212–213) with twigs these   ‘Then the animal starts to play with the twigs’



(OHG Phys., cl. 46) (162) Tene so stat ez uf then stands it up  



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 111

Surgens autem a somno (Lat. Phys., cl. 43) rising also from sleep   ‘Then it gets up’

The x-V-S pattern with nominal subjects corresponds to the Latin V-S in only 3 clauses, as in (163). Modifications are mostly changes from S-V to V-S, as in (164), and 7 additions and paraphrases, as in (165). (163) so uuachent sinu ougen (OHG Phys., cl. 22) so watch his eyes   vigilant oculi ejus (Lat. Phys., cl. 18) watch eyes his   ‘His eyes stay awake’

(164) Tannan sagita Iacob (OHG Phys., cl. 6) then said Jacob   Igitur Jacob dicebat (Lat. Phys., cl. 2) then Jacob said   ‘Then Jacob said’

(165) so suinet iro daz gisune (OHG Phys., cl. 246) so weakens her the sight   inpedimentum habet oculorum (Lat. Phys., cl. 270) impediment has eyes-GEN   ‘It starts to go blind’

On the whole, Physiologus comes across as very independent in its consistent use of the V-2 order. There is no evidence that the Latin had any decisive influence on its element order. If the influence of the Latin source texts on the translations is compared, we can clearly observe that the OE translations modify the original element order in the investigated group of clauses equally often (ca. 65% in all the OE texts). Table 43.  Proportions of V-2 and V-late clauses with modified element order. Text

Modified order

Total

Genesis

366 (67.8%)

540

Bede

215 (63.6%)

338

Luke

324 (64.5%)

502

Tatian

201 (36.6%)

549

Isidor

  80 (47.6%)

168

Physiologus

  79 (80.6%)

  98

112 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

In the case of the OHG translations, the high degree of independence of Physiologus from its source text is once again confirmed, while Tatian in most cases follows the original order. Isidor occupies an intermediate position between these two, but still copies the original order more often than any OE translation. However, the numbers themselves do not suffice to substantiate a claim that the OE translations are consistently more independent than the OHG ones since the previous sections show quite clearly that some of the sub-patterns are more independent than others. Table  44 summarises the frequency with which various modifications were applied by the translators in V-2 and V-late main declarative clauses (counted together). Table 44.  Modifications of source clause order in V-2 and V-late declarative clauses. Text

Added S

Added V

Reversing S-V order

Free translation

Total modifications

Genesis

176 (48.1%)

17 (4.6%)

137 (37.4%)

  36 (9.8%)

366

Bede

113 (52.6%)

17 (7.9%)

  42 (19.5%)

   43 (20.0%)

215

Luke

217 (67.0%)

  7 (2.2%)

  93 (28.7%)

   7 (2.2%)

324

Tatian

171 (85.1%)

10 (5.0%)

  20 (10.0%)

0 (0%)

201

Isidor

  41 (51.3%)

   8 (10.0%)

  28 (35.0%)

   3 (3.8%)

  80

Physiologus

  33 (41.8%)

  4 (5.1%)

   9 (11.4%)

   33 (41.8%)

  79

It is clear that in all the texts, the addition of an overt subject is the most frequent modification. In Tatian, which is a relatively close translation, this is the only regularly used type of modification, observed in 85% of the independent clauses. Reversing the relative order of S and V in the clause, which is a serious intervention in the original clause structure, is less common. The translations in which this happens most often are Genesis (37%) and Isidor (35%). In Tatian, this strategy is rare (10%), but still it has been identified in 20 clauses, which proves that this text cannot be considered a gloss. Clauses without clear Latin sources are very common in Physiologus (42%) and relatively common in Bede (20%); quite naturally, free translation is avoided in the biblical texts. If we compare how often V-2 and V-late patterns in each translation follow the original clause order (cf. Table 45), it becomes clear that only the clauses containing pronominal subjects are generally independent of the source texts.

Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 113



Table 45.  Proportion of clauses following the Latin order in various patterns. Text

V-late16

V-2 S-V

x-V-SNOM

x-V-SPRON

x-SNOM-V

x-SPRON-V

S-x-V

Genesis

31.9%

74.4%

0%

    48.0%

  5.3%

13.3%

Bede

32.5%

39.0%

  3.4%

    84.9%

12.5%

51.5%

Luke

32.4%

71.7%

  5.3%

    41.9%

  9.3%

45.2%

Tatian

61.1%

87.6%

  6.3%

100%

62.5%

78.6%

Isidor

65.6%

51.3%

0%

    50.0%

22.2%

78.9%

Physiologus

30.2%

15.0%

  8.6%

-

-

-

Interestingly, the patterns which are considered typical of both languages under investigation (S-V and x-V-SNOM) in most texts tend to follow the original order. The x-V-SNOM pattern is mostly classified as following the source text in Genesis, Luke and Tatian, which are all biblical translations with a high proportion of V-S clauses with the verb in the clause-initial position in the source texts. This is rendered in the translations by the V-2 pattern (the translators provided the initial inverting constituent to retain the relative order of the subject and the verb). If we compare the distribution of V-2 and V-late patterns in clauses modifying and following the original order, some interesting differences come to light. Table 46.  Differences between clauses following and modifying source text order. Text

Clauses modifying Latin

Clauses following Latin

V-2

V-late

Total

V-2

V-late

Total

Genesis

216 (59.0%)

  150 (41.0%)

366

142 (81.6%)

  32 (18.4%)

174

Bede

145 (67.4%)

   70 (32.6%)

215

  50 (40.7%)

  73 (59.3%)

123

Luke

233 (71.9%)

   91 (28.1%)

324

136 (76.4%)

  42 (23.6%)

178

Tatian

191 (95.0%)

  10 (5.0%)

201

271 (77.9%)

  77 (22.1%)

348

Isidor

  51 (63.8%)

   29 (36.3%)

  80

  60 (68.2%)

  28 (31.8%)

  88

79 (100%)

0 (0%)

  79

  19 (100%)

0 (0%)

  19

Physiologus

Table 46 shows that only in two texts, i.e. Bede and Tatian, is the proportion of V-2 clauses lower in clauses which follow the order of the source texts. This means that the lower frequency of the pattern in the Latin increases the frequency of V-late clauses in both texts, as shown in the previous sections. In Luke, Isidor and Physiologus, the distribution of patterns in both groups of clauses is virtually 16.  The x-x-V-S pattern is not included in this calculation, firstly because of its ambiguous status (as either following or violating the V-2 rule) and secondly because it is relatively infrequent in all the investigated translations.

114 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

identical, or at least very similar. Furthermore, in Genesis, the V-2 pattern is actually more frequent in clauses which follow the original order, i.e. the source text increases the frequency of V-2, while in Tatian and Bede, the source text influence is the opposite. On the whole, Bede and Tatian are the only translations in which the order of non-conjunct main declarative clauses is, to a greater extent, distorted by source text interference. 3.9 Summary and conclusions Our analysis has shown that subject type has a limited influence on the frequency of S-V inversion, not only in OHG, but also in two OE translations: Bede and Luke. Only in Genesis do most pronominal subjects follow the x-S-V pattern, while most nominal subjects are inverted (x-V-S). The fact that it is difficult to observe a difference in the frequency of inversion of pronominal and nominal subjects in Bede and Luke has an obvious explanation: the high frequency of þa which is predominantly (though not without exception) inverting regardless of subject type. When inversions caused by the so-called operators, i.e. þa and þonne, are eliminated from the OE statistics, the proportions change, though not drastically, as shown in Table 47. Table 47.  Rate of inversion of pronominal and nominal subjects with and without þa and þonne. OE with þa and þonne OE without þa and þonne Text

PRON. S

NOM. S

PRON. S

NOM. S

OHG Text

PRON. S

NOM. S

Genesis   22 (27.8%)   92 (78.6%)

  7 (10.9%)

34 (56.7%) Tatian 82 (91.1%) 131 (87.3%)

Bede

  61 (60.4%)   74 (58.3%)

20 (33.3%)

48 (47.5%) Isidor 13 (59.1%)   54 (81.8%)

Luke

113 (67.7%) 126 (80.3%)

  6 (10.0%)

21 (40.4%) Phys. 35 (100%)   20 (100%)

After this operation, in all the OE texts, pronominal subjects are inverted less often than nominal subjects. In Bede this difference is only ca. 14%, while in Luke, inversions caused by constituents other than þa are in general infrequent. The applied linear regression model shows that subject type is a statistically significant predictor of S-V inversion only in Genesis (both with and without clauses with þa included in the test). In the other texts, subject type turned out to be an insignificant factor. On the whole, it seems that inversion of subject pronouns is not less frequent in OE compared to OHG (if we include þa and þonne in the statistics), but is caused by a more limited set of constituents, all of which are adverbial in



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 115

function.17 Nonetheless, the constituents that actually invert subject pronouns in OE are not limited to þa and þonne; we have also noted single cases of her in Luke, swa in Bede and nu in Genesis. Therefore, infrequent as they are, adverbs causing inversion of pronominal subjects in OE are not a closed-class category. What is more, the fact that þa and þonne sometimes fail to cause inversion is in itself an interesting finding since in formal accounts these two adverbs are described as operators, having the same status as wh-words causing inversion in questions, as well as the negative particle ne, which, if placed in the clause-initial position, always leads to the V-S pattern (Kemenade 1987; Pintzuk 1999; Kroch & Taylor 1997; Haeberli 2002). Sections 3.6 and 3.8 show that lack of inversion after þa happens mostly in clauses in which þa appears in combination with some other adverb or with the interjection hwæt.18 When þa fails to cause inversion on its own, the equivalent Latin clause is always S-V, which suggests source text interference as the trigger for the use of the pattern. Since Latin interference never leads to the ne-S-V pattern, why is the parallel structure þa-S-V used? If both words are operators that are supposed to cause categorical inversion, why does one of them always behave in a consistent way regardless of the original order and the presence of other constituents in the clause-initial position, while the other is influenced by both? We leave these questions open since a full discussion of the status of þa as an operator in OE is beyond the scope of the present study. We would like, however, to emphasise that its behaviour is less regular than some authors suggest. According to other studies, lack of inversion of nominal subjects both in OE and OHG is a phenomenon which takes place after sentence adverbs. Therefore, we expect nominal inversion in clauses introduced by non-adverbial constituents, i.e. fronted objects or complements. As shown in section 3.6, clauses without inversion after such introductory elements were found in all the texts except Genesis and Physiologus. There is only one text in which fronted objects and complements fail to cause inversion of nominal subjects in a large number of clauses, and this is Bede. In Luke, Tatian and Isidor, such clauses are isolated cases. Since these structures are so atypical, and many of them follow the order of the source, Latin interference is the most probable reason for their use, though a few of these clauses do not have direct models in the source text. 17.  The possibility of S-V inversion caused by a preceding subordinate clause in OE is unconvincing since almost all of the clauses in our corpus which follow this order are negated; therefore, their alternative analysis as negated V-1 clauses in which negation, as such, is responsible for S-V inversion seems more plausible. 18.  Walkden (2013) has recently shown that the traditional interpretation of hwæt as an interjection standing outside of the clause structure is not so certain, as its presence has some influence on constituent placement within OE clauses.

116 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Moreover, the analysis has shown that the use of intervening phrases (S-x-V) is the most frequent V-late pattern in Tatian and Isidor, and that in both translations this order is to a great extent modelled on the Latin source text. In the OE translations, the quality of intervening phrases depends on the text. In Genesis, they are only sentence adverbs and pronominal objects, while in Bede and Luke, some heavier phrases are also placed between the clause-initial subject and the verb. Their number and weight is especially striking in Bede, where non-conjunct main declarative clauses are often V-final, with numerous heavy elements placed in the pre-verbal position under a clear influence of the Latin source. The decision trees generated for the analysed translations, as shown below, model the choice between the x-V-S and the x-S-V pattern. We do not include S-x-V clauses in the same model because the use of this pattern depends on different factors, i.e. subject type and introductory phrase are irrelevant. Note also that we do not take S-V clauses into account either. The trees show that in all the OE texts, the primary factor determining the choice of the pattern is the clause-initial phrase, with þa/þonne favouring the x-V-S pattern and soþlice/witodlice – the xS-V pattern. Within some introductory phrases in Genesis, shown below, the tree splits further on into pronominal and nominal subjects, which behave in the expected way, i.e. they follow the x-S-V and x-V-S patterns respectively.

Initial_phrase | Subject_type | Subject_type Initial_phrase Initial_phrase Initial_phrase Initial_phrase Initial_phrase Initial_phrase Initial_phrase | Subject_type | Subject_type Initial_phrase Initial_phrase

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

adverbial_PP PRONOMINAL: x-S-V (12.0) NOMINAL: x-V-S (6.0) adverbial_other: x-S-V (41.0/13.0) adverbial_ þa/þonne: x-V-S (74.0/3.0) adverbial_soþlice/witodlice: x-S-V (19.0/1.0) clause: x-V-S (5.0) complement: x-V-S (3.0/1.0) direct_object: x-S-V (11.0) indirect_object PRONOMINAL: x-S-V (2.0) NOMINAL: x-V-S (2.0) prepositional_object: x-S-V (8.0/1.0) non-finite_verb: x-V-S (3.0)19

It is interesting to note that the order of the Latin clause does not show up anywhere in the tree generated for Genesis. On the other hand, in Bede, while the in-

19.  x-V-S class: precision 0.944, recall 0.817 (104 instances). x-S-V class: precision 0.802, recall 0.939 (82 instances).



Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 117

troductory phrase is still of primary importance, Latin is the best predictor for the order of clauses introduced by prepositional phrases having an adverbial function.

Initial_phrase = adverbial_PP | Latin_order = V-S: x-V-S (2.0) | Latin_order = no S: x-S-V (8.0/1.0) | Latin_order = other: x-V-S (2.0/1.0) | Latin_order = S-x-V: x-S-V (1.0) | Latin_order = x-S-V: x-S-V (9.0/4.0) | Latin_order = x-S-x-V: x-S-V (5.0) | Latin_order = x-V-S: x-V-S (4.0) Initial_phrase = adverbial_other: x-S-V (50.0/13.0) Initial_phrase = adverbial_ þa/þonne: x-V-S (79.0/10.0) Initial_phrase = clause: x-V-S (17.0) Initial_phrase = complement | Subject_type = NOMINAL: x-V-S (3.0/1.0) | Subject_type = PRONOMINAL: x-S-V (2.0) Initial_phrase = direct_object: x-S-V (22.0/4.0) Initial_phrase = indirect_object: x-S-V (3.0) Initial_phrase = prepositional_object: x-S-V (4.0/1.0)20

The tree confirms that subject type (pronominal vs. nominal) does not have a crucial influence on the choice between the two patterns in Bede (it shows up only in clauses introduced by fronted complements). In Luke, the Latin order also appears in the decision tree, this time within clauses introduced by ‘other adverbials’, but the frequencies are very low, so our interpretation of Luke as a relatively independent translation (from the point of view of the patterns analysed in this chapter) still holds. Just as in the other OE translations, the introductory phrase causes the primary split, but subject type appears only within clauses with fronted indirect objects.

Initial_phrase = adverbial_ þa/þonne: x-V-S (215.0/3.0) Initial_phrase = adverbial_soþlice/witodlice: x-S-V (48.0/3.0) Initial_phrase = adverbial_other | Latin_order = no S: x-S-V (10.0) | Latin_order = x-V-S: x-S-V (3.0) | Latin_order = no V: x-V-S (3.0/1.0) | Latin_order = V-S: x-V-S (3.0) | Latin_order = x-S-V: x-S-V (5.0/1.0)

20.  x-V-S class: precision 0.829, recall 0.737 (118 instances). x-S-V class: precision 0.708, recall 0.806 (93 instances).

118 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations



Initial_phrase Initial_phrase Initial_phrase Initial_phrase | Subject_type | Subject_type Initial_phrase

= = = = = = =

complement: x-V-S (6.0/1.0) adverbial_PP: x-S-V (6.0/1.0) clause: x-V-S (4.0) indirect_object PRONOMINAL: x-S-V (3.0) NOMINAL: x-V-S (2.0) direct_object: x-S-V (10.0)21

On the whole, the trees generated for the OE translations show that subject type seems to play a lesser role with regard to the presence or absence of S-V inversion than expected.22 Turning to the OHG material, we can see that in Tatian, the main split visible in the decision tree is between various Latin orders, as shown below:

Latin_order = no V: x-V-S (3.0) Latin_order = S-V: x-V-S (10.0/2.0) Latin_order = S-x-V: x-S-V (4.0) Latin_order = V-S: x-V-S (73.0) Latin_order = x-S-V | Initial_phrase = adverbial: x-S-V (17.0/4.0) | Initial_phrase = direct_object: x-V-S (3.0/1.0) | Initial_phrase = indirect_object: x-V-S (2.0) Latin_order = x-S-x-V: x-S-V (4.0) Latin_order = x-V-S: x-V-S (38.0) Latin_order = no S: x-V-S (73.0/3.0)23

Most of the correlations revealed by the decision tree represent potential causes of interference, i.e. Latin ‘S-x-V’ and ‘x-S-x-V’ leading to x-S-V, and Latin ‘V-S’ and ‘x-V-S’ leading to x-V-S. However, clauses without an overt subject or finite verb in the Latin are mostly translated as x-V-S, and the Latin ‘S-V’ order is changed into x-V-S (though we have to remember that S-x-V clauses are not included in the model, and many of them have Latin S-V sources). All in all, we cannot claim

21.  x-V-S class: precision 0.974, recall 0.948 (233 instances). x-S-V class: precision 0.868, recall 0.929 (85 instances). 22.  To check to what extent clauses with þa skew the data, decision trees were also generated for samples without these clauses. This change did not affect the results: subject type appeared in the decision tree only in Genesis and Luke for clauses introduced by a limited set of constituents. 23.  x-V-S class: precision 0.97, recall 0.96 (200 instances). x-S-V class: precision 0.724, recall 0.778 (27 instances).

Chapter 3.  The V-second phenomenon 119



that Tatian does not show any native tendencies in its element order, though its high dependence on the original is evident. In Physiologus, there were no V-late clauses and the text was therefore not considered in the analysis, while the tree generated for Isidor shows no splits whatsoever:

: x-V-S (72.0/21.0)24

In short, the chapter has shown that all the analysed texts follow the V-2 rule, but the proportions between V-2 and V-late differ among the texts to a great extent. In Genesis, the OE tendency to invert nominal subjects and leave pronominal subjects uninverted is very strong even when inversion by the so-called operators is taken into account. However, both Bede and Luke tend to invert their pronominal subjects; in Luke, inversion mostly follows ða, while in Bede, the proportion of ða-inversions is lower. Genesis is also clearly independent of Latin in most of its patterns. In Bede, the use of the V-2 order, especially with pronominal subjects, is independent of Latin, but Latin influence is visible in V-late clauses (both in lack of inversion of nominal subjects and the use of numerous heavy intervening phrases). Luke is the most V-2 of all the OE translations, and this is caused by the exceptionally high frequency of ða and its consistent inverting influence in both nominal and pronominal subjects. In Tatian, there is no visible difference in the degree between pronominal and nominal inversions, and the orders used with pronominal subjects are surprisingly independent, but the great majority of V-late clauses (which mostly follow the S-x-V pattern) found in this text follow the Latin source text. In Isidor, V-late patterns are also modelled on the Latin relatively often, though not as often as in Tatian. This text follows the V-2 order slightly less frequently than Tatian (the proportions for Luke and Isidor are quite similar). Physiologus is an extreme case insofar as no V-late clauses were found in this text; all non-conjunct main declarative clauses with an overt subject follow the V-2 order, regardless of subject type and the clause-initial element. To conclude, both OE and OHG are V-2 languages. This is evident even in texts translated from Latin. The native character of the structure is corroborated by the fact that pronominal subjects added by the translators tend to follow the V-2 order (even in Tatian, which is the most source-dependent translation included in the corpus). Nonetheless, the two languages display differences with respect to the V-2 phenomenon, and this contradicts the ‘West-Germanic syntax’ hypothesis presented in Davis & Bernhardt (2002). What is more, in every translation from 24.  x-V-S class: precision 0.708, recall 1 (51 instances). x-S-V class: precision 0, recall 0 (21 instances).

120 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

our corpus, it is possible to identify atypical patterns whose presence may be due to Latin interference. The OE translation in which this happens most often is Bede, whereas the biblical translations come across as relatively independent (especially Genesis). In OHG, the V-2 pattern seems to have become stronger at the end of the period, as Physiologus, being the youngest of the OHG texts, applies the V-2 rule without exceptions, confirming the findings presented in Axel (2007). In the OE sample, there are no quantitative differences between the older and the younger translations, though in Bede, there is a greater variety of inverting, non-inverting and intervening phrases, suggesting that the V-2 phenomenon may have been less lexically dependent in earlier OE (a similar conclusion was reached by Bean 1983 and Traugott 1992). The most important Latin-independent difference between OE and OHG identified in this chapter is that while in OHG all subjects are inverted by all types of clause-initial elements (including adverbs, prepositional phrases, fronted objects and complements, as well as subordinate clauses), only a limited set of constituents may lead to inversion of OE subject pronouns. Conversely, only a limited set of constituents may fail to cause inversion of OE nominal subjects. This difference between OE and OHG is sometimes obscured by the source text, but if there is consistent control for the potential Latin influence, it is possible to observe clear language-specific tendencies.

Chapter 4

Verb-initial main declarative clauses 4.1 V-1 declarative clauses: overview 4.1.1

The origin of the V-1 order

In our study, a V-1 main declarative clause is defined as a non-conjunct clause1 with an overt subject and the finite verb in the clause-initial position (clauses in which S-V inversion could have been triggered by a preceding subordinate clause are excluded2). The V-1 pattern is said to have already been in use in ProtoGermanic, even though it is commonly assumed that this language was primarily SOV (Lehmann 2005), just like its ancestor, Proto-Indo-European.3 According to Hopper (1975), the V-1 order was used in Proto-Germanic mostly in imperative and interrogative clauses, and in asyndetic conditional clauses. In Old Germanic languages, the V-1 pattern was quite frequent, though not obligatory, in negated statements. Apart from these clearly defined contexts in which V-1 is expected, there are also affirmative main declarative clauses with the finite verb in the initial position, whose function is more difficult to define. Smith calls them clauses “with dramatic force” (1971: 96). Hopper (1975) confirms this view by stating that such declaratives were emphatic or dramatic; standing outside or introducing a sequence of clauses. Thus, their use depended either on emphasis or on the narrative structure of the text. The V-1 pattern is generally seen as marked (cf. Lehmann 2005) and characteristic of Germanic poetry. Its relatively high frequency in early Germanic poetic records is ascribed to “the poets’ inclination for dramatic effects” or “an archaising tendency in alliterative verse” (Hopper 1975: 52). 1.  Conjunct clauses, i.e. main declarative clauses introduced by co-ordinating conjunctions, are analysed separately in our book since their element order is supposed to differ from that of nonconjunct clauses, especially in OE (cf. Chapter 6). 2.  All of these clauses are analysed in Chapter 3 devoted to the V-2 order. 3.  Since the reconstruction of syntax, and especially element order, is much less straightforward compared to phonology and morphology, there are still many doubts about the Proto-IndoEuropean sentence structure (cf. Hopper 1975: 44–47 and Clackson 2007: 158 for a detailed discussion, and Walkden 2014 for some new insights). In any case, Proto-Indo-European probably allowed for much variation in order, just as the early attested daughter languages, and is unlikely to have been of the rigid SOV type (Clackson 2007: 166).

122 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

On the basis of the earliest runic inscriptions (3rd to 7th century AD), it is estimated that ca. 10% of early Germanic clauses exhibited the V-1 order, including imperatives and declarative clauses with topicalised verbs (Lass 1994: 220). Therefore, we can safely assume that both OE and OHG inherited this pattern from their Germanic ancestor. Consequently, similar syntactic behaviour should be expected in both languages under investigation. 4.1.2

V-1 declaratives in OE

According to Allen (1995), V-1 declarative clauses are “highly unusual” in her corpus of OE prose texts (poetry and glosses from Latin were excluded from her study), and there are “few deviations from the rule that only questions could be introduced by a verb” (Allen 1995: 34). According to Quirk & Wrenn (1955: 94), the V-1 pattern is used in OE for “special declarative effect” and its function is emphatic. Mitchell (1985: §3930–3935), on the other hand, claims that there are many clearly non-emphatic uses of the V-1 order in OE: presentational/existential structures, clauses with verbs of saying, clauses with an impersonal verb followed by a noun clause functioning as a subject, and clauses with a negated verb. It must be noted that clauses introduced by a negated verb are sometimes analysed by scholars as instances of V-2 (with ne treated as a negative adverb causing S-V inversion) and sometimes considered together with V-1 clauses (with ne treated as a proclitic element fixed to the verb).4 We agree with the arguments presented in Fischer et al. (2000), who claim that because ne is fixed to the pre-verbal position in OE without exception, it should be analysed as a clitic instead of an independent clause constituent. Therefore, clauses which begin with the negative particle ne (not the conjunction ne) followed by a verb are counted as instances of the V-1 pattern (also in accordance with Bech 2001b and following her arguments). With respect to the verb types used in V-1 declarative clauses, Allen (1995: 34) claims that this pattern tends to co-occur with verbs carrying “a very light semantic load” (e.g. ‘to be’). This is confirmed by Barret (1953), who found that Ælfric employed this pattern more frequently with auxiliary verbs than with full verbs. Other verb types which are also mentioned in this context are verbs of saying (Mitchell 1985; Ohkado 2005; Calle-Martin & Miranda-Garcia 2010) and motion verbs (Calle-Martin & Miranda-Garcia 2010; Petrova 2006). 4.  This problem with the analysis of negated clauses is present in OE as well as in OHG (cf. Axel 2007: 152). In formal accounts, negative-initial V-1 clauses are generally analysed as V-2, with ne functioning as an operator (as in van Kemenade 1987), or with the first position occupied by an empty operator and the second position – by a combination of ne and the finite verb (Ohkado 2005).



Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 123

Moreover, style and emphasis seem to be the recurrent explanation for the use of V-1 in OE. Barret (1953: 7) mentions the V-1 order in the context of Ælfric’s style, claiming that “Ælfric uses inversion to enliven his narrative, to add stylistic colour” to his texts. Davis & Bernhardt (2002: 54) state that “the exceptional postponing of the subject is primarily for stylistic reasons”. Mitchell expresses some serious doubts about the possibility of considering emphasis as a meaningful factor influencing the use of this pattern, admitting: “I have no means of knowing whether or not initial V imparts some special emphasis to those [clauses]” (Mitchell 1985: §3932). It must be noted, however, that Mitchell does not reject emphasis as a possible factor that could explain at least some of the examples that he found, but admits that he does not know how to test emphasis since it is to a great extent an interpreted feature which cannot be measured or checked using objective criteria. Nonetheless, emphasis may also be understood in terms of information structure, as suggested by Allen (1995), who claims that one purpose of fronting the verb is to emphasise a new or important subject (which would at least partly correspond to Mitchell’s presentational structures). In such a case, emphasis and information structure are connected in the form of a single factor which is much easier to analyse. Mitchell (1985: §3933) also mentions the narrative function of V-1. He states that V-1 clauses in prose texts serve to mark “a turning point, a transition, or a change of pace”. Some more precise observations can be found in Petrova (2006), who based her study on OE poetry (i.e. Beowulf): The overall impression gained from the analysis of these structures in OE is that they occur exactly in cases where the plot enters a new stage of development or the narration needs to be pushed forward. Among the cases of verb-first placement in such contexts, motion verbs constitute the overwhelming part.  (Petrova 2006: 168)

Thus, it seems that the narrative function of V-1 declaratives is well established in OE (cf. Ohkado 2004). Nonetheless, the problem is that even though V-1 clauses seem to emphasise a (new information) subject and play some role in the narrative structure of the text, in OE there are many instances in which a new or important subject actually precedes the verb (Allen 1995), so information structure itself does not suffice to explain the use of the pattern. The relation seems to work in one direction only: V-1 clauses introduce new subjects but new subjects are introduced in other clauses too; in prose texts usually with þa + V-S, as mentioned by Hopper (1975). The same may be observed in poetry, cf. Petrova’s admission that “instances of verb-second order introduced by initial þa ... co-occur in all the functions and contexts described for verb-initial sentences” (2006: 170).

124 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Last but not least, as mentioned by Quirk & Wrenn (1955: 94), the frequency of V-1 seems to depend on “individual preference” because the pattern is exceptionally frequent in certain texts, most notably in the Ælfredian Bede and “some of the poetry”; the authors do not, however, provide any details about specific poems in which the structure is common. In this context, Mitchell (1985: §3933) mentions Campbell’s theory that V-1 in main clauses is a verse tendency transferred to prose, but still much less frequent there. In short, the factors which may influence the use of the V-1 pattern in OE are: a. negation b. verb type (auxiliaries, motion verbs and verbs of saying are especially frequent in this context) c. discourse and information structure (with V-1 declaratives introducing a new subject or marking a turning point in the narration) d. particular types of constructions (with existential / presentational constructions and impersonal verbs using the V-1 pattern relatively often) e. genre (the pattern is more common in poetry) f. individual preference (the pattern is more common in poetry and in Bede) 4.1.3

V-1 declaratives in OHG

V-1 declarative clauses in OHG are said to have “a stylistic motivation” (Davis & Bernhardt 2002: 54), which is a very vague statement. Many textbooks provide us with some quite general remarks concerning this pattern, e.g. “[t]he verb in this position doubtless had stylistic value” (Lockwood 1968: 256). Stylistic value is a very imprecise concept, but some linguists have managed to work out more specific explanations for the use of the pattern. The most exhaustive list can be found in Axel (2007): the V-1 pattern is used in presentational and existential structures, with mutative verbs (i.e. verbs of change, including verbs of movement), passive or passive-like constructions, verbs of saying, and negated sentences. The factors mentioned above seem very similar to the ones discussed in the case of OE. Yet, OHG differs because the possibility of foreign influence is sometimes mentioned in the context of V-1 clauses. According to Penzl (1986: 101), “[u]nter dem Einfluβ des Lateinischen kann das Verb nicht nur im subjektlosen Aussagesatz in Anfangstellung vorkommen” [under the influence of Latin the verb could occupy the initial position not only in subjectless declarative clauses].5 This theory is probably based on the fact that V-1 declaratives are exceptionally common in Tatian, where they often correspond to Latin V-1 clauses. Nonetheless, 5.  Translations of German sources mentioned in this section have been provided by the authors.



Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 125

according to Lippert (1974: 53), the V-1 pattern used in the declarative main clause is native, but its frequency is increased by the source text (‘quantitative loan syntax’). This assumption is confirmed by the fact that V-1 declaratives are quite common in Otfrid, which is a native verse composition. However, the idea that the structure is foreign is supported by Robinson (1997), who claims that its use in the Isidor translation can be explained by its non-native character. He noticed that the majority of V-1 declaratives used in Isidor can be found in biblical quotations, and suggested that “the Isidor translator had fixed on verb-first as a marker for the Biblical portions of the text, imposing it even in those cases where the Vulgate does not give a direct model” (Robinson 1997: 25). His hypothesis that V-1 is a foreign pattern, used in the translation because of its distinctiveness, to emphasise the special character of the biblical quotations, is described as “too strong” by Axel (2007: 129), who admits that the Latin model could have contributed to an increase in the frequency of the pattern (cf. Lippert’s ‘quantitative loan syntax’), but that the structure itself is native. Her main argument is that the verbs used with the V-1 pattern in Isidor are typical of V-1 declaratives found in other OHG texts (mutative verbs, verbs of saying and passive auxiliaries). A different approach to the study of V-1 declaratives is taken by Hinterhölzl & Petrova (2005), who studied information structure in various OHG texts, including Tatian, and found that: ... verb-initial structures establish coordinative discourse relations whereas verbsecond clauses signal subordinating linkage to the previous discourse part. In this sense, a verb-initial occurrence within the text, even involving an already established discourse referent, may be perceived as a signal that the utterance quits a previous passage of subordination and returns to the main line of the discourse.  (Hinterhölzl & Petrova 2005: 73)

Thus, Hinterhölzl & Petrova (2005) see V-1 as a narrative device which is used to open a new storyline or to carry the narration on to a new stage. The structure also often co-occurs with “motion verbs, verbs of saying as well as verbs of sensual or cognitive perception” (Petrova 2006: 159). To sum up, the factors that should be considered in the study of V-1 declaratives in OHG are: a. negation b. verb type (with mutative verbs, auxiliaries in passive structures and verbs of saying especially frequent in this context) c. information structure (with V-1 declaratives introducing a new subject or marking a turning point in the narration) d. Latin interference (or at least ‘quantitative loan syntax’)

126 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

As in the case of OE, stylistic reasons seem to be related to narrative structure and they are not listed as a separate variable. It should be noted that many of the factors mentioned here and in the section devoted to OE may overlap (e.g. mutative verbs and existential constructions can be expected in places where the narration enters a new stage or a new subject is introduced, and they make the narration ‘lively’). Latin interference, on the other hand, is a new factor which is not mentioned in any study devoted to V-1 declaratives in OE, while in our analysis, it is of crucial importance because of the aims of the whole project and the fact that our study is based on translated texts. In our analysis, we aim to check all the factors in the context of both languages to determine whether any of them works exclusively in one language or if all of them have at least some influence on both OE and OHG. 4.2 Research questions The aim of the study is to compare the use of the V-1 pattern in all the texts from our corpus in order to establish text-specific and language-specific tendencies. The factors which we selected for the purpose of the study are: verb type, negation, narrative function (operationalised as subject type), Latin influence and individual preference. The following research questions were formulated: a. What types of verbs appear in V-1 clauses in the texts? b. How does negation influence the use of the structure? c. What is the narrative function of V-1 declaratives found in the texts (i.e. how often do they introduce new subjects into the narration)? d. Are V-1 declaratives used independently of the Latin source texts? e. Which of the factors mentioned above seem(s) dominant in the analysed texts? Let us recall that in our study, a V-1 declarative is defined as any non-conjunct main declarative clause with an overt subject where the finite verb (with or without the negative particle ne or ni) is the first element of the clause, which excludes conjunct clauses (analysed in Chapter 6). This is especially important in the context of OHG, where most syntactic studies do not introduce the subdivision into conjunct and non-conjunct clauses.6

6.  Therefore, our results from this chapter alone are not directly comparable e.g. to Robinson (1997).



Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 127

4.3 Overall results The V-1 pattern, as a generally atypical structure, is expected to appear with a relatively low frequency both in OE and OHG. Table 1 shows how often it is used in our corpus (only non-conjunct main declarative clauses with an overt subject are counted as contexts for the use of the structure). Table 1.  The frequency of V-1 in non-conjunct main declarative clauses with S. Text

Contexts

V-1

Genesis

565

25 (4.4%)

Bede

410

  72 (17.6%)

Luke

512

10 (1.9%)

Tatian

638

  89 (13.9%)

Isidor

186

16 (8.6%)

Physiologus

  98

0 (0%)

The frequency alone shows that the translations differ extensively in the use of the V-1 order. V-1 declaratives are especially frequent in Bede (ca. 18%) and Tatian (14%), relatively frequent in Isidor (ca. 9%), rather infrequent in Genesis (ca. 4%) and Luke (ca. 2%), and completely absent from Physiologus. The aim of the following sections of this chapter is to show which factors influence the use of the structure, explaining such striking frequency differences. 4.4 The influence of verb type and negation One of the major factors that may have influenced the use of the V-1 pattern is the verb itself, as the structure is said to co-occur with certain types of verbs. Table 2 shows how often V-1 co-occurs with verbs of saying, mutative verbs (including motion verbs), auxiliary verbs, the verb ‘to be’ (not as an auxiliary, but in presentational and existential structures and as a copula verb), negated verbs, and other verbs.

128 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 2.  Verb types in V-1 declaratives. Text

Saying

Mutative

Auxiliary

Genesis

0 (0%)

1 (4.0%)

4 (16.0%)

Bede

21 (29.2%)

4 (5.6%)

14 (19.4%) 15 (20.8%)

Luke

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Being

Other7

Total

0 (0%)

25

6 (8.3%)

12 (16.7%)

72

10 (100%)

0 (0%)

10

Negated

3 (12.0%) 17 (68.0%) 0 (0%)

Tatian

8 (9.0%)

30 (33.7%) 10 (11.2%)

16 (18.0%) 20 (22.5%)

89

Isidor

3 (18.8%)

2 (12.5%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

5 (31.3%)

6 (37.5%)

16

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

 0

Physiologus

5 (5.6%)

It clear that verb type allows us to explain all the uses of V-1 in the texts with a low frequency of the structure, i.e. Genesis and Luke (in the latter case, negation on its own suffices to account for its use), whereas the three texts in which V-1 clauses appear with higher frequencies use the structure with other verbs as well. On the whole, there are clear differences between the texts as far as the dominant verb type is concerned. Genesis: In Genesis, negation plays a crucial role, accounting for 17 out of 25 uses of the V-1 pattern, as in (1). In affirmative clauses, there are 4 auxiliary verbs (wesan and weorðan) in passive structures, as in (2), 3 presentational structures with the verb wesan and beon, as in (3) and one verb of motion, cuman, shown in (4). ic nan þing ðises (Genesis, cl. 1537) (1) Nyste not-knew I no thing this-GEN   ‘I did not know anything of it’  (Gen 21:26) (2) Wæs ða geworden micel flod (Genesis, cl. 533) was then made big flood   ‘There was a great flood’  (Gen 7:17) (Genesis, cl. 639–647) (3) Bið ðonne se min renboga on ðam wolcnum   is then the my rainbow on the clouds ‘Then my rainbow shall be in the clouds’  (Gen 9:16)

7.  The category “other” comprises all verbs which could not be classified as belonging to the categories already specified. These verbs include onhyrian, habban, onfon, eardian, haldan, warenian, niman, sendan, sittan, wiþ-scufan and fon in Bede; gibiotan, biginnan (twice), biten, firstantan (twice), selen, gifahan, firlougnen, intfahan, wizan (twice), tuon, mihhiloson, gilouben (twice), gisehan (3 times) and threwen in Tatian; meinan, geban, suohen, gilihhen, sezen, bitan in Isidor. Some of the verbs found in Tatian could be classified as another coherent group, namely verbs of perception and cognition (gisehan, gilouben, firstantan, wizan) – this would mean that there are only (or still) 12 verbs in Tatian that do not belong to any well-defined group.



Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 129

(4) Comon ða on æfnunge twegen englas came then on evening two angels to þære byri Sodoma (Genesis, cl. 1264) to the city Sodom   ‘Two angels came to the city of Sodom in the evening’  (Gen 19:1)

Bede: In Bede, the most common verb type are verbs of saying, as in (5). Besides, the verbs wesan and beon are well represented, functioning in presentational structures, as in (6), as auxiliaries, as in (7) and as copula verbs, as in (8). Negation is surprisingly infrequent in V-1 clauses from this text: there are only 6 clauses following the pattern presented in (9), but this is the result of the exceptionally high frequency of V-1 in affirmative clauses in Bede.8 (5) Cwæð he se heah biscop to him (Bede, cl. 1948) said he the high bishop to him   ‘The high bishop said to him’ (Bede, cl. 884) (6) Wæs bi eastan þære ceastre wel neah sumo cirice was by east the town-GEN well near some church   ‘There was a church on the east close to the town’ … (Bede, cl. 416) (7) Wæs Romaburh abrocen fram Gotum destroyed from Goths   was Rome ‘Rome was destroyed by the Goths...’ (Bede, cl. 774) (8) wæs he feowertiga sum was he forty-PL.GEN some   ‘There were around forty of them altogether’ (9) Ne seondon heo hwæðre for þisse wiisan to biscergenne gemænsumnisse they however for this cause to exclude fellowship-DAT not are Cristes lichoman & blodes (Bede, cl. 1139–1140) Christ’s body and blood   ‘However, they are not, for this cause, to be excluded from the communion of Christ’s body and blood’

Luke: In Luke, all 10 V-1 clauses are negated, as in (10). (10) Nis se leorningcniht ofer þone lareow (Luke, cl. 981) not-is the disciple over the teacher   ‘The disciple is not above his master’  (Lk 6:40) 8.  What is more, in Bede there are 15 negated V-1 clauses preceded by subordinate clauses which in our study were classified as V-2 and presented in Chapter 3 devoted to the V-2 phenomenon. It its difficult to determine if the S-V inversion present in these clauses was caused by the presence of the preceding subordinate clause or by the negative particle itself (cf. section 3.5.2).

130 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

In short, negation co-occurs with V-1 in all the OE translations. What is more, in all the OE translations, the verb ‘to be’ (performing different functions, and including negated clauses, as in (9) and (10)) frequently co-occurs with the V-1 pattern. In addition, Bede very often uses the verb cweðan in this context. Therefore, the question is if it is really the verb type or the verb itself which favours the use of the structure. If we add up three most frequent verbs used in V-1 clauses in Bede, i.e. wesan, beon and cweðan, they appear in 49 out of 72 V-1 declaratives (including negated clauses), which is 68% of all the occurrences. Both wesan and beon are also found in V-1 clauses in Genesis, where they account for 10 out of 25 cases (40%), whereas in Luke, beon is found in 5 out of 10 of the negated V-1 clauses (50%). In order to determine whether the use of the V-1 pattern is lexically based, the number of occurrences of all finite forms of these verbs was calculated in the OE sample (only non-conjunct main declarative clauses with an overt subject were considered). This enabled us to check whether the frequent occurrence of wesan, beon and cweðan in V-1 declaratives is caused by the fact that these verbs have a generally high frequency of occurrence and co-occur with various structures, including V-1. Table 3.  The frequency of the V-1 order in clauses with wesan, beon and cweðan. Genesis

Bede

Luke

Total

V-1 clauses

Total

V-1 clauses

Total

V-1 clauses

wesan

46

   3 (6.5%)

82

24 (29.2%)

37

   0 (0%)

beon

68

    7 (10.3%)

72

  8 (11.1%)

67

    5 (7.5%)

cweðan

61

0 (0%)

16

11 (68.7%)

40

0 (–)

Table 3 shows that the co-occurrence of wesan with the V-1 order is quite high in Bede (ca. 30% of the uses of wesan in affirmative non-conjunct main declarative clauses follow the V-1 pattern). In the case of beon, the proportion of V-1 is similar in all the texts, but it is lower compared to that of wesan in Bede. However, V-1 is not a majority pattern in either case. The impression that wesan and beon favour the V-1 order seems to be caused by the fact that these verbs are generally frequent, but they do not seem to be a trigger for the use of V-1 in any of the analysed texts except Bede, where they follow the V-1 order relatively frequently. The most interesting case, though, is the verb cweðan, which is by no means absent from Genesis and Luke, even though it does not appear among the V-1 clauses even once in these two translations. In Bede, on the other hand, where the absolute frequency of the verb is lowest (only 16 occurrences), the clauses containing it follow the V-1 pattern in 69% of cases, as in (5). What is more, 7 out of 11 V-1 declaratives with cweðan have exactly the same form: cwæð he (‘said he’).



Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 131

Therefore, the whole phrase seems to function as a fixed expression introducing quotations (a quotation formula). In Genesis and Luke, cweðan appears mostly in clauses beginning with þa cwæð (19 times in Genesis, 29 times in Luke) as e.g. in (11) and (12). (11) Ða cwæð Abraham (Genesis, cl. 1673) then said Abraham   ‘Then Abraham said’  (Gen 24:6) (Luke, cl. 481) (12) Ða cwæð se deofol him to then said the devil him to   ‘Then the devil said to him’  (Lk 4:3)

In Genesis, a frequent combination is also God cwæð (used 20 times) as in (13). (13) God cwæð þa (Genesis, cl. 1225) God said then   ‘Then God said’  (Gen 18:15)

We may conclude that the difference in the use of cweðan in the analysed translations is to a great extent due to the lexical fixedness of the reporting clauses, with the verb fixed in a V-1 formula in Bede and a set of V-2 formulas in the other texts. Tatian: Moving on to the OHG texts, the most frequent verb type co-occurring with the V-1 pattern in Tatian are mutative verbs (ca. 33%), mostly motion verbs, as in (14). Negated verbs are also well represented, as in (15). There are also some auxiliaries, as in (16), and verbs of saying, as in (17). (Tatian, cl. 865) (14) Quamun sie thô they then   came ‘Then they came’  (Jn 1:39) (15) Nist iungiro ubár meistar (Tatian, cl. 1787) not-is disciple over master   ‘The disciple is not above the master’  (Mt 10:24) (16) Uuard thô gifullit heilages geistes Helisabeth (Tatian, cl. 131–138) became then filled holy-GEN ghost-GEN Elizabeth   ‘And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.’  (Lk 1:39–41) (17) quad iru truhtin (Tatian, cl. 2582) said her lord   ‘The Lord said to her’  (Lk 10:41)

Isidor: In Isidor, the best represented categories are verbs of saying, as in (18), and negated verbs, as in (19).

132 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(18) quad truhtin (Isidor, cl. 41) said lord   ‘The Lord said’ (19) Ni zirinne herrin fona iudæ (Isidor, cl. 648) not dies prince from Judah   ‘The prince of Judah shall not die’

As in the OE data, the verbs with the highest frequency, i.e. quedan, wesan, queman, gangan, and werdan were checked in the corpus (all finite forms in nonconjunct main declarative clauses with an overt subject were considered). Table 4.  The frequency of the V-1 order in clauses with quedan, wesan, queman, gangan and werdan. Tatian Total

Isidor

V-1 clauses

Total

V-1 clauses

quedan

92

4 (4.3%)

25

      3 (12.0%)

wesan

37

10 (27.0%)

 8

   0 (0%)

queman

21

10 (47.6%)

 2

   0 (0%)

gangan

17

  5 (29.4%)

 0

0 (–)

werdan

22

  5 (22.7%)

 8

   0 (0%)

Table  4 shows that the only verb which seems to favour the V-1 pattern in the OHG translations is queman, which follows the V-1 order in nearly 50% of all the cases in Tatian, as in (14). The verbs wesan and werdan also follow this order relatively frequently, but no such correlation is observed in Isidor. In short, there is some correlation between the verb type (or the choice of a specific verb) and the V-1 order in some of the analysed translations, but this factor allows us to account for all the instances of the V-1 order in two texts only: Genesis and Luke. In Bede, Tatian and Isidor, the verb (type) can explain only some uses of V-1 in main declarative clauses. Other factors are presumably at work here and will be discussed in the following two sections. 4.5 The narrative function of V-1 declaratives Since, according to Allen (1995) and Ohkado (2004), the function of V-1 declaratives is to introduce new and/or important subjects into the narration, one might expect pronominal subjects to be absent, or at least very infrequent, in the analysed group of clauses. Table 5 presents the proportion of pronominal subjects in the analysed texts, with a division into affirmative and negative clauses.

Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 133



Table 5.  The proportion of nominal vs. pronominal subjects in V-1 declaratives. Text / clause

AFFIRMATIVE

NEGATIVE

Subject

Pronominal

Nominal

Pronominal

Nominal

Genesis

   0 (0%)

     8 (100%)

    14 (82.3%)

     3 (17.7%)

    35 (53.0%)

    31 (47.0%)

     2 (33.3%)

     4 (66.7%)

Bede Luke

0 (–)

0 (–)

     4 (40.0%)

     6 (60.0%)

Tatian

    15 (20.5%)

    58 (79.5%)

     9 (56.2%)

     7 (43.8%)

Isidor

    1 (9.0%)

    10 (91.0%)

     3 (60.0%)

     2 (40.0%)

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

Physiologus

Obviously, the division into nominal and pronominal cannot be equated with the distinction between new and given: pronouns are typically given, but nouns may be either new or given. However, since pronouns, which are usually used anaphorically to refer back to the previously mentioned elements of the discourse, cannot introduce new subjects into the narration, the absence of pronominal subjects from the affirmative V-1 clauses in Genesis, their extremely low frequency in Isidor (only one case) and the dominance of nominal subjects in Tatian do not come as a surprise. What is more surprising, though, is the fact that in Bede, there are more pronominal than nominal subjects in affirmative V-1 clauses. In all the texts except Bede, the proportion of pronominal subjects in negated clauses is higher than in affirmative clauses, which shows that negation on its own, regardless of the information status of the subject, may trigger the use of the V-1 pattern. Therefore, negative V-1 clauses are excluded from further analysis in this section. Genesis: In Genesis, affirmative V-1 declaratives, which all contain nominal subjects, do indeed tend to introduce new subjects into the narration. An example is presented in (20): (20) Wæs ða geworden æfen & merien se sixta dæg (Genesis, cl. 112) was then made evening and morning the sixth day   ‘Then it was the evening and morning of the sixth day’  (Gen 1:31)

Even though a similar formula is used six times in the description of the six days of creation, only one clause, shown in (20), could be classified as a V-1 declarative. Two of the remaining clauses, as in (21), demonstrate S-V inversion after ða, while three remaining ones are conjuncts, as in (22). However, all of these clauses, (20)-(22), have the subject in the final position, which very nicely shows that even though V-1 declaratives tend to introduce new subjects, new subjects are actually introduced in many different ways in OE (cf. Allen 1995), but always with the new subject placed at the end of the clause.

134 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(21) ða wæs geworden æfen & merigen an dæg (Genesis, cl. 13) then was made evening and morning one day   ‘Then it was the evening and morning of the first day’  (Gen 1:5) (22) & wæs ða geworden æfen & mergen oðer dæg (Genesis, cl. 23) and was then made evening and morning other day   ‘And then it was the evening and morning of the second day’  (Gen 1:8)

Out of 8 affirmative V-1 declaratives found in Genesis, 3 are used at the beginning of a completely new story, and once even at the beginning of a chapter, cf. (23). (23) Comon ða on æfnunge twegen englas came then on evening two angels to þære byri Sodoma (Genesis, cl. 1264) to the city Sodom   ‘Two angels came to the city of Sodom in the evening’  (Gen 19:1)

As far as the information status of the nominal subjects is concerned, they represent old information in only one case which is shown in (24) : (24) Ðæt is, ðæt ic sette minne renbogan on wolcnum, & he byð that is that I set my rainbow on clouds and he is tacn mines weddes betwux me & ðære eorðan. Þonne ic oferteo sign my covenant-GEN between me and the earth when I cover heofonan mid wolcnum, ðonne æteowað min boga on ðam wolcnum. heaven with clouds then appears my bow on the clouds & ic beo gemyndig mines weddes wið eow, ðæt heononforð and I am mindful my covenant-GEN with you that henceforth ne byð flod to adylgienne eall flæsc. Bið ðonne se min renboga not is flood to destroy all flesh is then the my rainbow on ðam wolcnum (Genesis, cl. 639–647) on the clouds   ‘I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be the sign of a covenant between me and between the earth. When I cover the sky with clouds, then my bow shall appear in the clouds and I will remember my covenant with you, that henceforth there shall be no flood to destroy all flesh. Then my rainbow shall be in the clouds’  (Gen 9:14–16)

Therefore, it seems that the narrative function of the V-1 pattern in ‘pushing forward’ the narration may, but does not have to, coincide with the introduction of a new subject into the narration because se min renboga is clearly not new in the passage shown in (24). Bede: In Bede, 11 out of 31 nominal subjects used in affirmative V-1 declaratives introduce clearly new subjects into the narration, as in (25). In 20 cases, the



Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 135

subject is either directly repeated, as in (26), or it is accessible, as it reappears in the narration regularly (subjects classified as accessible are mostly, though not exclusively, proper names: ‘Britain’, ‘Britons’, ‘the island’, ‘St. Augustine’, etc.), as in (27). (25) Wæron ða ærest heora latteowas & heretogan were then first their leaders and commanders twegen gebroðra Hengest & Horsa (Bede, cl. 637) two brothers Hengist and Horsa   ‘Their leaders and commanders were at first two brothers, Hengist and Horsa’ (26) & cwom mid unmæte weorode & stronge wið hine to gefeohte. Ac he and came with vast army and strong with him to fight but he hwæðre oferswiðed mid feawum onweg fleah Wæs ðis gefeoht geworden however defeated with few away fled was this battle made on þære mæran stowe (Bede, cl. 1700–1702) on the famous place   ‘And came with a vast and powerful army to fight against him. However, he was defeated and fled away with only a few. This battle took place at that famous place’

(27) Is þæt ealond welig on meolcum & on hunige (Bede, cl. 104) is that island rich on milk and on honey   ‘The island is rich in milk and honey’

The high proportion of pronominal subjects in the V-1 pattern is increased by the frequent combination of verbs of saying with subject pronouns, as in (28); 17 out of 35 of these clauses (almost 50%) contain verbs of saying and follow the pattern shown in (28). (28) Cwædon heo, þæt heo nænig þyssa don wolde, ne hine for ærcebiscop said they that they none this do would nor him for archbishop habban wolden (Bede, cl. 1958–1960) have would   ‘They said that they would not do any of these things, nor have him as archbishop’

In short, only 11 out of 66 affirmative V-1 clauses found in Bede introduce completely new subjects into the narration, so the relation between information structure and the use of the pattern is less clear-cut than in Genesis, while in Luke the structure in question is used in negated clauses only so it is excluded from this part of the analysis.

136 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Tatian: In Tatian, 19 out of 58 nominal subjects in affirmative V-1 clauses are clearly new, as in (29), and the remaining 39 are old information, i.e. either directly repeated as in (30), or accessible; the most frequent accessible subject found in the text is ther heilant as in (31). (29) Uuas thô thâr Anna uuizzaga, was then there Anna prophetess dohter Fanueles fon cunne Aseres (Tatian, cl. 444) daughter Phanuel-GEN from tribe Aser-GEN   ‘And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser.’  (Lk 2:36)

(30) Arstantenti Maria in then tagon gieng in gibirgu mit ilungu rising up Mary in the days went to mountains with haste in Iudeno burg, ingieng thô in hûs Zachariases inti heilizita in Juda-GEN city entered then in house Zachary’s and saluted Elisabeth. Uuard thô, so siu gihorta heilizunga Mariun Helisabeth, Elizabeth became then when she heard salutation Mary’s Elizabeth gifah thaz kind in ira reue Uuard thô gifullit heilages geistes moved the child in her womb became then filled holy ghost-GEN Helisabeth (Tatian, cl. 131–138) Elizabeth   ‘Mary rising up in those days went into the mountains with haste into the city of Juda. She entered into the house of Zachary and saluted Elizabeth. It came to pass that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant moved in her womb. Elizabeth was then filled with the Holy Ghost’  (Lk 1:39–41)

(31) Arstuont thó ther heilant (Tatian, cl. 2393) stood then the saviour   ‘Then Jesus stood up’  (Mt 9:19)

Isidor: In Isidor, there is only one affirmative V-1 declarative with a subject pronoun, but it is a demonstrative pronoun, and in one of the previous clauses, the full phrase ‘the unbelievers’ is used, as shown in (32). (32) Ibu christ got nist, sagheen nu dhea unchilaubun uns (...) Suohhen if christ god not-is say now the unbelievers us seek dhea nu auur these now though ‘If Christ is not God, tell us the unbelievers (….) They now wonder though’

The subject is clearly not new, but it does introduce a new stage into the narration because the unbelievers are asking a new question, which is answered in the next



Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 137

part of the treatise. Out of 10 nominal subjects, 5 are given, as in (33), and the remaining 5 are new to the narration as in (34). (33) Inan dhuo dhanan uzs dhurah geilin aruuorpanan ni arsluoc got, him then later away through pride thrown not killed god oh uurehhan chifrumida uzs fona paradises bliidhnissu; beit noh but exile made away from paradise-GEN joys hoped also auur dhurah hreuun dhuo dher aluualdendeo dhazs ir sih then the almighty that he himself again through remorse mahti chigarauuan zi chinisti. Endi so ir auur dhuo ni uuas might prepare to salvation and so he again then not was huuerfandi zi dhes ęrrin meghines uueghe: Gab dhuo got moysi returned to the earlier virtue-GEN way gave then god moses-DAT euua (Isidor, cl. 557–563) law   ‘Later, God did not kill him, cast away for the sake of pride, but exiled him from the joys of paradise. The almighty hoped that he could prepare himself for salvation through remorse, but he did not return to the way of virtue. Then, God gave law to Moses’



(34) Quhad dauid isais sunu (Isidor, cl. 279) said David Jesse-GEN son   ‘Said David, the son of Jesse’

On the whole, Genesis is the only text in which there is a regular correlation between the use of V-1 and the type and information status of the subject; pronominal subjects follow the V-1 pattern only in negated clauses and almost all nominal subjects found in affirmative V-1 clauses are new. In the other texts, these tendencies are less clear. The next section aims to show to what extent the pattern under investigation may be influenced by the order of the Latin source texts. 4.6 Relation to Latin Table 6 shows how many V-1 clauses follow the position of the verb and the subject in the source texts. Clauses are classified as following Latin when their Latin equivalents are V-1 clauses with an overt subject and a verb form, either finite or non-finite, placed at the beginning of the clause.

138 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 6.  The degree of correspondence between the V-1 pattern in source and target texts. Text

AFFIRMATIVE

NEGATED

Following Latin

Total

Following Latin

Total

Genesis

     8 (100%)

 8

     4 (23.5%)

17

Bede

    16 (24.2%)

66

   0 (0%)

 6

Luke

0 (–)

 0

     2 (20.0%)

10

Tatian

    58 (79.4%)

73

     9 (56.2%)

16

Isidor

     6 (54.5%)

11

     2 (40.0%)

 5

0 (–)

 0

0 (–)

 0

Physiologus

It is clear that the Latin source texts influenced the translations to a different degree. However, in all the texts except Tatian, the V-1 order in negated clauses is mostly independent of the Latin (and even in Tatian, the proportion of clauses following Latin is not overwhelming). Furthermore, the high frequency of V-1 in Bede cannot be attributed to source text interference because only 24% of affirmative V-1 clauses follow the Latin order. However, all the instances of affirmative V-1 in Genesis coincide with a similar structure found in the Latin. In Tatian, the degree of correspondence is also high, while in Isidor, the proportions are quite balanced. Genesis: In Genesis, illustrated in Table 7, 3 out of 8 affirmative V-1 declaratives follow the Latin closely, as in (35). Table 7.  Relation to Latin in V-1 clauses in Genesis. Following Latin Close copy

Slight modification

Modifying Latin Added S

Total

Restructuring

Affirmative

3 (37.5%)

5 (62.5%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 8

Negated

2 (11.8%)

2 (11.8%)

   11 (63.7%)

   2 (11.8%)

17

(35) Wæron ða Noes suna ðe of ðam arce eodan: were then Noe’s sons who of the ark went Sem & Cham & Iaphet (OE Genesis, cl. 654–655) Sem, Cham and Japheth   erant igitur filii Noe qui egressi sunt de arca were then sons Noe who come were of ark Sem Ham et Iafeth (Lat. Genesis, cl. 713) Sem, Cham and Japheth   ‘The sons of Noe who came out of the ark were Sem, Cham, and Japheth’  (Gen 9:18)



Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 139

In (35), both the initial position of the finite verb and the position of the subject are exactly the same in both languages. In two negated clauses, the situation is the same, as shown in (36). (36) Ne ðurhwunað na min gast on men on ecnysse (OE Genesis, cl. 448) not remains not my ghost on men on eternity   non permanebit spiritus meus in homine in aeternum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 481) not remains spirit mine in man eternally   ‘My spirit shall not remain in man forever’  (Gen 6:3)

What is more, the only affirmative V-1 declarative found in Genesis in which the nominal subject is not new strictly follows the Latin order, as shown in (37). (37) Bið ðonne se min renboga on ðam wolcnum (OE Genesis, cl. 647) is then the my rainbow on the clouds   eritque arcus in nubibus (Lat. Genesis, cl. 705) is-FUT-and bow in clouds   ‘Then my bow shall be in the clouds’  (Gen 9:16)

Examples (35)-(37) are clear instances of clauses following the Latin source. 5 clauses classified as following Latin include some slight modifications of the original order; the Latin clauses contain a clause-initial complex verb phrase, with the non-finite verb at the beginning of the clause, as in (38). Such cases were also classified as following Latin because it would be difficult to claim that the use of the V-1 pattern is completely independent of the source text. (38) wurdon ða behelede ealle ða heahstan duna were then covered all the highest mountains under ealre heofenan (OE Genesis, cl. 540) under whole heaven   opertique sunt omnes montes excelsi covered are all mountains high sub universo caelo (Lat. Genesis, cl. 580) under whole sky   ‘All the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered’  (Gen 7:19)

In clauses classified as modifying Latin, the source text definitely could not have inspired the use of V-1. (39) is a relevant example, showing a negated V-1 clause. (39) Ne ofsleh ðu Drihten unscyldigne mannan (OE Genesis, cl. 1397) not slay you Lord innocent men   ‘Lord, you will not slay innocent men’

140 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Domine, num gentem ignorantem et iustam lord surely not nation ignorant and just interficies (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1660) slay-2SG   ‘Lord, surely you will not slay a nation which is ignorant and just’  (Gen 20: 4)

On the whole, Genesis seems influenced by the source text in its (infrequent) use of the V-1 order in affirmative main declarative clauses. Bede: Table 8 shows that in Bede, only 15% of affirmative V-1 declaratives follow the Latin order closely, as in (40). Table 8.  Relation to Latin in V-1 clauses in Bede. Following Latin Affirmative Negated

Modifying Latin

Total

Close copy

Slight modification

Added S

Restructuring

   10 (15.1%)

  6 (9.1%)

  22 (33.3%)

28 (42.4%)

66

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

6 (100%)

 6

(40) Sende to him Lucius Breotone cyning ærendgewrit (OE Bede, cl. 135) sent to him Lucius Britain-GEN king letter   misit ad eum Lucius Brittaniarum rex epistolam (Lat. Bede, cl. 248) sent to him Lucius Britain-GEN king letter   ‘To him Lucius, king of Britain, sent a letter’



In 6 cases classified as slight modifications, the Latin original has a non-finite verb form in the initial position while in OE the order of the non-finite and finite verb is reversed, as in (41). (41) Is awriten in Sancte Agustinus byrgenne is written in Saint Augustine’s grave þisses gemetes gewrit (OE Bede, cl. 2047) this-GEN sort-GEN inscription   Scriptum uero est in tumba eiusdem Augustini written truly is in tomb the same-GEN Augustine-GEN epitaphium huiusmodi (Lat. Bede, cl. 2273) epitaph this-GEN sort-GEN   ‘On the tomb of St. Augustine the following inscription is written’

In the majority of cases, however, the translation modifies the original order. In 33% of the affirmative V-1 clauses, the OE version provides an overt subject where the original has none, and the subject is inserted in the post-verbal position, without a clear inspiration from the Latin, as in (42).



(42)

Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 141

Cwædon heo to him (OE Bede, cl. 1906) said they to him   Dixerunt said-3PL   (Lat. Bede, cl. 2117) ‘They said to him’

In as many as 28 clauses (42% of affirmative V-1), the Latin original is completely different from the translation, as in (43). (43) Wæs Breotene ealond Romanum uncuð (OE Bede, cl. 110) was Britain-GEN island Romans-DAT unknown   Uerum eadem Brittania Romanis usque ad Gaium Iulium Caesarem Truly the same Britain Romans-DAT until Gaius Julius Cesar inaccessa atque incognita fuit (Lat. Bede, cl. 162) inaccessible and unknown was   ‘The island of Britain was unknown to the Romans [until Gaius Julius Cesar]’

In addition, in 6 cases, the Latin original has an overt pronominal subject in the pre-verbal position, which is changed to post-verbal in the translation, as in (44). (44) Cwæð he (OE Bede, cl. 1789) said he   At ille: ‘Bene’ inquit (Lat. Bede, cl. 2011–2012) and this-M well said   ‘He said [well]’

In all the negated V-1 declaratives, the original element order is modified and no Latin influence can be suggested, as in (45). (45) Ne meaht þu deman Gallia biscopas not may you judge Gaul-GEN bishops buton heora agenre aldorlicnesse (OE Bede, cl. 1200) without their own authority   Ipse autem extra auctoritatem propriam episcopos Galliarum iudicare you yourself but outside authority own bishops Gaul-GEN judge non poteris (Lat. Bede, cl. 1397) not may-2SG   ‘You may not judge the bishops of Gaul without their own authority’

Thus, the high frequency of V-1 declaratives in Bede is not a manifestation of Latin influence, even though not all uses of the structure are independent of the original. Luke: In Luke, 8 out of 10 negated V-1 declaratives use the V-1 order independently of the Latin original, as shown in Table 9.

142 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 9.  Relation to Latin in V-1 clauses in Luke. Following Latin Affirmative Negated

Modifying Latin

Close copy

Slight modification

Added S

Restructuring

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

     2 (20.0%)

   0 (0%)

     1 (10.0%)      7 (70.0%)

Total  0 10

In one case, shown in (46), only a missing pronominal subject is provided. In the remaining 7 cases, the order of the original clause is completely different from the translation, as in (47). (46) Ne com ic rihtwise clypian (OE Luke, cl. 782–783) not came I just call   non veni vocare iustos (Lat. Luke, cl. 866–867) not came-1SG call just   ‘I did not come to call the just’  (Lk 5:32)

(47) Ne asend nan man scyp of niwum reafe on eald reaf (OE Luke, cl. 799) not puts no man piece of new garment on old garment   quia nemo commissuram a vestimento novo inmittit that no one piece from garment new puts in vestimentum vetus (Lat. Luke, cl. 883) in garment old   ‘No man puts a piece from a new garment upon an old garment’  (Lk 5:36)

There are only 2 negated clauses which follow the original order in Luke, as shown in (48). (48) Nis se leorningcniht ofer þone lareow (OE Luke, cl. 981) not-is the disciple over the teacher   non est discipulus super magistrum (Lat. Luke, cl. 1066) not is disciple over teacher   ‘The disciple is not above the master’  (Lk 6:40)

All in all, even though no affirmative V-1 declaratives were found in Luke, the negated clauses show such a degree of independence from the Latin original that they can safely be treated as examples of a native OE structure. Tatian: Table 10 shows that in Tatian, the majority of V-1 declaratives follow the original element order, as in (49).

Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 143



Table 10.  Relation to Latin in V-1 clauses in Tatian. Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

Close copy

Slight modification

Added S

Restructuring

Affirmative

39 (53.4%)

19 (26.0%)

11 (15.1%)

  4 (5.5%)

73

Negated

  7 (43.7%)

  2 (12.5%)

  7 (43.7%)

0 (0%)

16

(49) nahit sih nú himilo ríhhi (OHG Tatian, cl. 958) approaches REFL now heaven-GEN kingdom   adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum. (Lat. Tatian, cl. 951) approaches for kingdom heavens-GEN   ‘For the kingdom of heaven approaches’  (Mt 3:2)

This is the case with 53% of affirmative clauses and 43% of negated clauses, one of which is presented in (50). (50) Ni uuas her thaz lioht (OHG Tatian, cl. 631) not was he the light   Non erat ille lux (Lat. Tatian, cl. 627) not was this-M light   ‘He was not the light’  (Jn 1:8)

Apart from such cases, which are nearly word for word translations, there are also 14 clauses, classified as slight modifications, which have an initial non-finite verb form in the Latin original with the reversed order of the non-finite and the finite verb form in the target text, as in (51). (51) Uuard tho giheilit thie kneht in thero ziti (OHG Tatian, cl. 1984) was then healed the servant in this time   Et sanatus est puer in illa hora (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1945) and healed is servant in this hour   ‘The servant was healed at the same hour’  (Mt 8:13)

Another type of slight modification is presented in (52), where the original features a sequence of a non-finite adverbial clause followed by a main clause, and the subject seems to belong to both clauses at the same time (an apo koinu construction): 5 such clauses are present in our sample. (OHG Tatian, cl. 2041–2042) (52) Gieng tho zuo ein buochari inti quad imo went then to one scribe and told him   Et accedens unus scriba ait illi (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2001–2002) and approaching one scribe said him   ‘A certain scribe approached him and said to him’  (Mt 8:19)



144 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

The translation does not follow the original closely, as the non-finite clause is changed into a finite main clause and the subject is unambiguously located in the first sentence. Still, the possibility of Latin influence cannot be excluded here. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that not all the V-1 declaratives found in Tatian are copies of the Latin. First of all, there are clauses in which the subject is placed post-verbally even though the source text does not provide a model for this position, in spite of also showing V-1, cf. (53) and (54). (53) giforhtun sie im thô in mihhilero forhtu (OHG Tatian, cl. 362) feared they REFL then in great fear   et timuerunt timore magno (Lat. Tatian, cl. 361) and feared-3PL fear-ABL great-ABL   ‘They feared with a great fear’  (Lk 2:9)

(54) ni ges thú thanan úz (OHG Tatian, cl. 1277) not go you-SG thence out   non exies inde (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1260) not go-2SG thence   ‘You shall not go out from thence’  (Mt 5:26)

In addition, there are also some clearly independent uses of the V-1 order in affirmative declaratives, where the Latin clause has an overt subject but the verb is not clause-initial, as in (55). in thero lantskeffi uuahhante (OHG Tatian, cl. 357) (55) Uuarun thô hirta were then shepherds in the country watching   Et pastores erant in regione eadem vigilantes (Lat. Tatian, cl. 357) and shepherds were in region the same watching   ‘And there were in the same country shepherds watching’  (Lk 2:8)

What is more, in one of these cases, the subject is pronominal (and we would expect it to be placed pre-verbally in OHG), but its position was changed by the translator, as shown in (56). (56) stuont hér náh themo uuage Genesareth (OHG Tatian, cl. 979) stood he by the lake Genesareth   et ipse stabat secus stagnum Genesaret (Lat. Tatian, cl. 972) and this-M stood by lake Genesareth   ‘He stood by the lake of Genesareth’  (Lk 5:1)

Thus, Tatian shows a high degree of correspondence with its source text as far as the V-1 pattern is concerned, but we have to note that some independent uses of V-1 are attested in this text.

Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 145



Isidor: In Isidor, 6 out of 11 affirmative declaratives have an obvious Latin model, as show in Table 11 and illustrated by (57): 4 are biblical quotations which are generally considered to depend on the source text to a greater extent than the other parts of the treatise (cf. Robinson 1997; Schlachter 2009). Table 11.  Relation to Latin in V-1 clauses in Isidor. Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

Close copy

Slight modification

Added S

Restructuring

Affirmative

6 (54.5%)

0 (0%)

4 (36.4%)

1 (9.1%)

11

Negated

2 (40.0%)

0 (0%)

1 (20.0%)

  2 (40.0%)

 5

(OHG Isidor, cl. 204) (57) Quhad druhtin druhtine minemu lord-DAT mine-DAT   said lord Dixit dominus domino meo (Lat. Isidor, cl. 297) said lord lord-DAT mine-DAT   ‘The Lord said to my Lord’  (Psalm 109)

In the case of negated clauses, correspondence with the Latin was found in two cases, as in (58), which is a word for word translation without any modification whatsoever. (58) Ni zirinne herrin fona iudæ (OHG Isidor, cl. 648) not dies prince from Judah   Non deficiet princeps ex iuda (Lat. Isidor, cl. 732) not dies prince from Judah   ‘The prince of Judah shall not die’

As far as the changes introduced by the translator are concerned, post-verbal subjects were added to Latin V-1 clauses in 4 affirmative and 1 negated clause, though unlike in the previously analysed translations, 3 out of 5 added subjects were nonpronominal as in (59), probably for clarity’s sake. In the negated clause, presented in (60), the added overt subject is a personal pronoun. (59) Gab dhuo got moysi euua (OHG Isidor, cl. 563) gave then god moses-DAT law   Dedit legem per moysen (Lat. Isidor, cl. 647) gave-3SG law through Moses   ‘Then God gave law to Moses’

146 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(60) ni uueizs ih einigan chuninc fona iudases edhile (OHG Isidor, cl. 666) not know I any king from Judah’s family   nescio quem regem ex genere iudę (Lat. Isidor, cl. 749) not know-1SG which king from family Judah’s   ‘I do not know any king from the family of Judah’

There is only 1 affirmative V-1 declarative in Isidor which substantially modifies the order of the source clause. It is found in the significantly paraphrased passage presented in (61). (61) Meinida dher forasago chiuuisso in dheru christes lyuzilun, huuanda ir uns in the Christ’s smallness that he us meant the prophet truly uuard chiboran, nalles imu selbemu (OHG Isidor, cl. 433–435) was born not him himself   Paruolus enim christus, quia homo et natus nobis, non sibi child for Christ because man and born us not himself   (Lat. Isidor, cl. 519) ‘By the fact that Christ was a child the prophet meant that he was born for our sake and not for his own sake’

Finally, there are also two negated clauses in which the translator changed the original order, as in (62). (62) ni bluchisoe eoman (OHG Isidor, cl. 194) not doubts anyone   nemo dubitet (Lat. Isidor, cl. 287) no one doubts   ‘Nobody doubts’

It must be concluded that the V-1 declaratives found in Isidor depend on the Latin original to a considerable extent. It is not surprising that so many scholars, including Robinson (1997), claim that they should be treated as examples of foreign influence. All in all, affirmative V-1 clauses found in the analysed translations depend on the Latin to a great extent in every text except Bede (if they are attested at all; let us recall there are no such clauses in Luke and Physiologus). The degree of correspondence ranges from ca. 79% in Tatian to ca. 24% in Bede. These two texts with the highest proportion of V-1 follow the pattern for different reasons since only Tatian is heavily influenced by source text in this respect. Furthermore, the OE biblical translations either completely avoid the use of the pattern in affirmative clauses, as in Luke, or use it only when Latin provides a direct model, as in Genesis. Negated V-1 declaratives seem to be used independently in all the OE translations, while their dependence on the Latin is (slightly) higher in the OHG texts.

Chapter 4.  Verb-initial main declarative clauses 147



4.7 Summary and conclusions The analysis presented in the previous sections focused on negation, verb type, subject type, narrative structure and Latin as factors influencing the use of the V-1 pattern. The assumption, based on other studies of OE and OHG syntax, was that the structure is used with specific verb types (mostly verbs of being and saying as well as mutative verbs), with negated verbs, and new non-pronominal subjects. The following factors enable us to account for all or most of the occurrences of the structure in the analysed translations: – Genesis: negation, Latin interference / verb type – Bede: verb type, Latin interference, negation (7 clauses cannot be explained in this way) – Luke: negation – Tatian: Latin interference, verb type, negation (4 clauses cannot be explained in this way) – Isidor: verb type, negation, Latin interference (4 clauses cannot be explained in this way) Even though the V-1 order mostly co-occurs with certain verb types, negation and certain Latin orders, this does not mean that these verb types, negation and Latin orders in general co-occur with the V-1 pattern. This is illustrated with the pruned decision trees generated for non-conjunct main declarative clauses with an overt subject in all the translations. The data included in the model are all non-conjunct main declarative clauses with an overt subject having all attested element orders; the classifier was supposed to model the choice between V-1, V-2 and V-late in the analysed translations on the basis of the factors which are said to favour the use of the V-1 order in OE and OHG. In the case of Genesis, as shown below, only negation turns out to co-occur with the V-1 order in most cases (17 out of 27); all the other factors are mostly connected with V-2 or V-late.

verb_type = negated: V-1 (27.0/10.0) verb_type = auxiliary: V-2 (59.0/16.0) verb_type = existential/presentational: V-2 (31.0/5.0) verb_type = motion/mutative: V-2 (63.0/26.0) verb_type = other | Latin_order = no S: V-late (98.0/46.0) | Latin_order = other: V-late (9.0/2.0) | Latin_order = V-1 (with S): V-2 (71.0/33.0) | Latin_order = no Latin: V-2 (5.0/1.0)

148 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations



| Latin_order = no V: V-2 (2.0) | Latin_order = S-V: V-2 (35.0/10.0) | Latin_order = x-S-V: V-late (15.0/7.0) | Latin_order = x-V-S: V-2 (8.0/4.0) verb_type = saying: V-2 (96.0/15.0) verb_type = to be: V-2 (46.0/7.0)9

The tree confirms that the use of the V-1 pattern in Genesis is largely unpredictable (cf. the low precision and recall for the V-1 class),10 with negation as the only statistically significant predictor of the V-1 pattern in this group of clauses (p  0.01 in both cases). This means that in Tatian the influence of the source text order on the analysed structure is – unsurprisingly – strongest. In Isidor, the decision tree resembles the one generated for Luke:

: V-2 (184.0/73.0)14

The V-1 pattern is so infrequent in the translation that neither the tree nor the linear regression model shows any significant predictors of its use. Therefore, the putative diachronic development is not clear in the data as Isidor uses the structure much less frequently than Tatian, whereas in Tatian its frequency is significantly increased by Latin influence. Last but not least, it must be admitted that even though the whole analysis suggests that narrative structure plays some role in the use of V-1 declaratives, the claim that V-1 declaratives introduce new subjects into the narration cannot be verified in all the texts. The preference for pronominal subjects is especially visible in Bede, as is the use of pronouns in this context against the Latin source text in Tatian, which otherwise has the highest degree of dependence of the V-1 pattern on Latin. This points to the use of the V-1 pattern with old subjects as a native phenomenon, to be found in both languages under investigation. To conclude, V-1 declaratives are a native structure present both in OE and OHG, which began to disappear at the end of the Old Germanic period. Therefore, the use of the pattern depends on the date of composition of the texts, which seems to account for at least some of the striking differences between the texts written in the same language. Even though the V-1 patterm was analysed on the basis of translations, it was possible to consider a variety of factors influencing its occurrence. What is more, the analysis of the dependence of the structure on the Latin and its interrelations with other factors proved to be an interesting source of information about this syntactic phenomenon. V-1 declaratives, despite being native to both languages in question, at least partly depend on the order of the Latin source texts, indicating that Latin had more influence on the use of V-1 in translated texts than the literature devoted to OE syntax traditionally suggests. 14.  V-1 class: precision 0, recall 0 (16 instances). V-2 class: precision 0.603, recall 1 (111 instances). V-late class: precision 0, recall 0 (57 instances).

Chapter 5

Element order in subordinate clauses

5.1 Subordinate clauses: overview 5.1.1 Introduction The starting point for the analysis presented in this chapter is straightforward. In both OE and OHG, there is the same general association between element order and hypotaxis: subordinate clauses tend to have the finite verb at the end of the clause (cf. Mitchell 1985: §3911; Lass 1994: 224 for OE; Bernhardt & Davis 1997: 69; Axel 2007: 6 for OHG). While there seems to be general agreement about this basic correlation, by no means does it constitute a firm analytical basis. This is because there is a substantial portion of subordinate clauses without the V-final order in OE (cf. Traugott 1992: 170) as well as in OHG (Axel 2007: 80). The predominance of the V-final order in subordinate clauses is an observable statistical tendency in both languages – sometimes simply called “subordinate order” (cf. Traugott 1972: 108). However, the extent to which and with what reservations it can be treated as a grammatical rule is less certain. The similarity of OE and OHG in this respect has a historical cause. Both languages inherited the pattern, which appears to have been the basic element order in Proto-Germanic, and possibly also in Proto-Indo-European (Lass 1994: 218).1 Subsequently, both daughter languages developed V-2 rules in main clauses and the V-final order was mainly confined to subordinate clauses. It is this stage of development on which our analysis is concentrated. We should also add that in later epochs, the two languages developed in opposite directions. English had lost V-final as the ‘subordinate order’ by the end of the 12th century (Stockwell & Minkova 1991: 381). It also lost the V-2 rule, and it has mostly followed the SVO order in both main and subordinate clauses since Middle English times. The element order in German after OHG also became more fixed, but it embraced the Old Germanic tendencies. As a result, present-day Standard German is strictly V-2 in main declarative clauses and V-final in subordinates. Non-V-final subordinate clauses exist in German, but they either have a distinct pragmatic function (cf. Freywald 2009) or represent the few constructions with special rules for element 1.  Cf. fn. 3 in Chapter 4.

154 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

order (e.g. asyndetic V-1 conditional clauses). Dialectal varieties of German, however, are not so strictly V-final in subordinate clauses (Axel 2007: 9). Despite well-known exceptions, the V-final order is often regarded as a marker of subordination in OE (Fischer et al. 2000: 57) as well as in OHG (Näf 1979: 227– 8). The classical examples of the functional role of element order invoke words that can function as adverbs (in main clauses) or conjunctions (introducing subordinate clauses) like the OE þa and the OHG tho (both meaning ‘then’ or ‘when’), as shown in (1) to (4). (1) þa cwæþ se halga wer (ÆLS (Vincent) 196) then said the holy man   ‘Then the holy man said’  (after Fischer et al. 2000: 116) (2) Đa ic ða ðis eall gemunde (…) (CPLetWærf) when I then this all remembered   ‘When I remembered all this’  (after Traugott 1992: 170) (3) tho antuurtita in der heilant (Tatian 287, 16) then answered them the Saviour   ‘Then Jesus answered them’  (after Axel 2007: 6) (4) tho her thisiu quad (Tatian 343,28) when he these said   ‘When he said this’  (after Axel 2007: 6)

The functional load of element order is as follows: if the verb in a given clause immediately follows the adverb/conjunction, then the clause is interpreted as main with the V-2 rule at work. On the other hand, if the verb is clause-final, the clause is interpreted as subordinate. However, element order is not a watertight criterion here: V-2 subordinate clauses and V-final main clauses exist both in OE and OHG, though they are rather infrequent. We have to bear in mind that the two features (order and clause type) are logically independent and their values should be decided separately. Relying too much on the “not infallible guide” of element order (Mitchell 1985: §3922) puts the researcher at risk of circular reasoning and may alter the general picture of the studied text (cf. Kida 2014). In the creation of our corpus, this issue was given special attention, and we decided the status of the clause independently of its internal order on the basis of context and, in particular, information structure (cf. section 2.4 for details). 5.1.2 Subordinate clauses in OE It seems natural to suspect that dependent clauses with a different status in the superordinate clause (argument, adjunct or attribute) as well as different meaning



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 155

(temporal, spatial, etc.) might behave differently. Indeed, a number of sources on OE mention differences between particular types of subordinates, but they contradict each other as far as the details are concerned. On the basis of Traugott (1972: 108), we can order the types of clauses according to the strength of the ‘subordinate order’: 1. nominal clauses and adverbial clauses of time, place, and manner (most V-final); 2. conjunct clauses (cf. Chapter 6); 3. relative clauses (least V-final). In a study of order distribution in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Stockwell & Minkova found exactly the opposite: it was the relative clauses that were most commonly V-final (1987: 509),2 while Quirk & Wrenn (1957: 94) give still a different ordering: 1. relative and concessive clauses (most V-final); 2. temporal and conditional clauses; 3. causal clauses and nominal clauses (least V-final). Fischer et al. (2000: 61) claim that relative clauses are more OV than other subordinates, but at the same time note a difference within the group. Relative clauses introduced by relative pronouns are not infrequently V-2. This is attributed to the ambiguous character of the forms of the pronoun se, which can be either demonstratives in main clauses or relative pronouns (Fischer et al. 2000: 56, Mitchell 1985 II: 86ff.). Somewhat informally, one can say that se-relatives appear to be ‘less subordinate’ than those with the invariant particle þe. Another general trend that Traugott mentions is “a gradual shift from greater to lesser use of V-final patterns” (1992: 276). What is to be expected then is that newer texts would show less V-finality in subordinate clauses. Traugott’s observations are no doubt in line with the general direction of development of element order in subordinates in the history of English, where the V-final order was no longer in use after the 12th century. Yet, they may oversimplify the picture since tendencies in language history change and fluctuate in shorter time-spans as well. For example, a study by Gardner (1971: 53) reports an increase of S-x-V (i.e. V-final) versus S-V-x order in nominal clauses of the West Saxon texts throughout the OE period, which works in the direction opposite to the eventual developments (loss of the V-final order in English). In any case, with just three texts, our 2.  As relative clauses are at the same time most clearly marked as subordinate (as opposed to adverbial clauses introduced by ambiguous conjunctions/adverbs), the findings made the authors question the functional load of element order in OE.

156 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

study is not tailored to address issues of chronological development as a main research problem. What is more, there is also a tendency in OE to place heavy constituents clausefinally which “led to a situation that was not entirely consistent with OV word order in subordinate clauses” (Traugott 1992: 276). Thus, weight of constituents, related to extraposition of particularly long phrases, is an important factor responsible for the use of non-V-final patterns. In general, extraposition is both common and quite free in OE, especially in comparison to Modern Germanic languages (cf. van Kemenade 1987: 29–37). A variety of constituents associated with the verb can be placed clause-finally. According to Mitchell (1985: §3912), adverbials are the most common post-verbal phrases. Among adverbials, there are prepositional phrases, which are thought to be the core cases of extraposition (cf. Pintzuk and Kroch 1985 after van Kemenade 1987:40). Yet, many other constituents can also be extraposed: objects (including light NPs, cf. van Kemenade 1987: 41), adverbs and complements. Clause-final subjects are rare and are generally non-agent ones like those of unaccusative verbs or passives (Fischer et al. 2000: 116–117). 5.1.3 Subordinate clauses in OHG Existing analyses of OHG note differences in the statistical distribution of element orders between particular types of subordinate clauses. Näf’s (1979) study of Notker’s Consolatio distinguishes the following types: 1. indirect questions (most V-final); 2. relative clauses; 3. clauses introduced by subordinating conjunctions (least V-final). The findings of the detailed study of the Isidor text by Robinson (1997) can be summed up as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

conditional clauses (most V-final); clauses of manner; clauses of time and place and relative clauses; causal clauses; indirect questions; nominal dhazs clauses; adverbial dhazs clauses (least V-final).

The last group are clauses of purpose, and as many as half of them are claimed to be clear counter-examples to V-finality (Robinson 1997: 83). Bernhardt & Davis (1997) analyse the OHG Tatian and provide ‘clause templates’ for various types of clauses. The main weakness of their work is the lack



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 157

of any statistics for the proposed patterns, so giving a ranked list of clause types according to the frequency of the V-final order is in fact impossible. However, temporal clauses (Bernhardt & Davis 1997: 82) and clauses of consequence (i.e. clauses of purpose and result; 85) seem to be most removed from strong V-finality. Apart from the ‘standard’ or ‘unmarked’ clause patterns which Bernhardt & Davis (1997) postulate for particular types and subtypes of clauses, they also admit the existence of exceptions to the formulated patterns. One of the factors the authors mention in the discussion is that of weight, light constituents being more likely to be placed before the verb and heavy ones more likely to appear after the verb (Bernhardt & Davis 1997: 101). The link between the weight of the phrase and its clause-final position is also mentioned by Näf (1979: 242), who sees it as one of the chief factors related to extraposition (Ausklammerung) of phrases. As far as constituent types are concerned, Bernhardt & Davis (1997: 101) claim that weight plays a particularly strong role with objects and complements. Taken together with the patterns postulated by the authors (Bernhardt & Davis 1997: 98–99), this suggests that we should expect these two phrase types to be most likely to appear post-verbally, especially if the given phrase is heavy. What seems to be missing here are the adverbials. All the other sources agree that the most typical phrase type extraposed in OHG are prepositional phrases, most of which have an adverbial function. Thus, Robinson (1997: 149) notes that prepositional phrases are most common among post-verbal constituents in Isidor as well as in Notker’s Psalter, and claims that objects are more likely to be extraposed than subjects. Robinson’s observations are in line with those of Näf (1979), who provides exact figures in his analysis of another text by Notker, Consolatio. Prepositional phrases with a full noun turn out to be the largest group of extraposed constituents (Näf 1979: 236). Subjects, by contrast, are extraposed least often. Yet, for any type of constituent, extraposition takes place in less than half of the possible contexts: most phrases of all types are pre-verbal. With regard to the post-verbal subjects, Axel (2007: 90) observes that most of them are found in clauses with unaccusative predicates. Näf (1979) is perhaps the only source that mentions another interesting aspect of the structure of subordinates. Not all such clauses include a marker of subordination (subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun). If subordinate clauses are conjoined, these markers are often omitted in the later clauses. The author explicitly claims that the presence or omission of the conjunction has no impact on the element order of the clause; same is true for the omission of the subject pronoun (Näf 1979: 217). Since OHG has survived mostly in the form of translations, influence of the Latin source texts is always taken into consideration in works dealing with the language (e.g. in Axel 2007 and Hinterhölzl & Petrova 2005). Even Bernhardt &

158 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Davis, who somewhat too readily assume Tatian to be generally independent of the Latin source (1997: 22–23), do acknowledge the existence of Latin influence in general (1997: 28, 100) and at particular points of their analysis (e.g. 1997: 70). In general, though, Latin is perhaps less often explicitly mentioned as a factor in the discussion of OHG subordinates than in the case of main clauses. 5.1.4 Summary: Factors influencing the order of subordinate clauses in OE and OHG The main factors associated with variation of element order in subordinate clauses are: a. b. c. d.

type of clause type of post-verbal constituent weight of constituents Latin influence

We must add that the first factor on the above list is quite complex because of various levels of possible division of subordinate clauses, as the lists of clause types provided in the previous two sections illustrate. Even though many scholars mention types of clauses with reference to order, there might actually be too little overlap between the categories they consider in this connection. This is not because of the existence of various competing classifications, but rather due to varying degrees of subclassification. Therefore, the investigation is divided into two levels of granularity: we first compare the general types of subordinates: adverbial, nominal and relative clauses (section 5.4) before moving on to more detailed categories (sections 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10). 5.2 Approach and study design 5.2.1 Classifying element order in subordinate clauses The classification of element orders in subordinate clauses is rather complicated. First of all, V-final as ‘the subordinate order’ is hardly ever seen as a grammatical rule in the strict sense. Quite a lot of variation is accepted in the analyses of both OE (e.g. Stockwell & Minkova 1991; Fischer et al. 2000) and OHG (e.g. Axel 2007; Näf 1979). Thus, an OE subordinate clause without the finite verb at the very end need not be considered an exception at all (Stockwell & Minkova 1991: 375) because various syntactic processes may affect the surface order and push constituents to the right of the verb, or the verb to the left. The same can be said



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 159

about OHG: Näf (1979: 227) actually uses the label ‘Nachzweitstellung’ (‘position after the second’) when discussing subordinate clauses. Axel (2007: 8–9) notes that several syntactic processes (known also in modern Germanic dialects) may move the verb leftwards from the end of the clause, and rightward movement of other constituents (extraposition) is not uncommon in OHG either. The observed ordering variation in subordinate clauses may be explained to a certain extent by the assumption of the underlying OV order (translating into V-final, cf. van Kemenade 1987: 15), which is shared by most studies on OE and OHG.3 Thus, the V-final subordinates appear to be a negatively defined class: they are the clauses that have not had their order altered (in one respect at least) in the postulated syntactic derivation. A number of processes (extraposition, verb-raising, verb-fronting, verb-projection raising) are claimed to produce non-V-final subordinates. As the discussion heretofore makes clear, our data from translated texts cannot simply be assessed as following or breaking a well-defined rule established elsewhere (as is the case in Chapter 3 for example). The major conceptual problem is how to produce an operational classification system for subordinate clause order. It seems that there is no escape from treating V-finality as the standard of comparison, simply because it is the only one available. However, as a result, the element order distinctions made here will differ from the ones used in the other chapters. In essence, our labels for subordinate clauses are based on counting constituents from the end of the clause. The classification also needs to involve gradation, distinguishing various levels of diversion from the V-final order (see section 2.6 for an overview of all the element order labels used throughout the book). In principle, there is a difference between the rightward movement4 of various constituents to a post-verbal position and the leftward movement of the verb (of any kind). The former consists in the extraposition5 of phrases to the end of the 3.  The alternative view holds that in OE there was competition between the OV and the VO grammar (Pintzuk 1999). Analyses of this kind have also been proposed for OHG (e.g. Schallert 2007). Such an interpretation accounts for the variation between OV and VO, as well as the existence of non-V-final subordinates, in a straightforward way. The practical problem with this approach is that it does not specify the conditions governing the choice between the parallel grammars. 4.  We talk of ‘movement’ of phrases here because the discussion draws mainly from generative analyses, which devote much of their attention to the issue of (basic) element order. Yet, the remarks made are meant to be compatible with other frameworks as well. For this purpose, ‘movement’ in the discussion could be re-read as ‘placement’ or ‘position’. 5.  There may be different driving forces behind individual instances of movement. Thus, what we call extraposition is in fact a group of processes rather than a single process. This practice

160 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

clause. This is the ‘extended V-final’ order. The process of extraposition affects a certain constituent and places it in the clause-final position. By far the most common situation associated with extraposition is when the constituent in question is of considerable weight (Traugott 1992: 276; Näf 1979: 242),6 which is related to a universal tendency to place long phrases late in the clause (cf. Croft 1993: 57–58).7 The verb’s non-final position is, to an extent, a side effect in clauses with extraposition. By contrast, leftward movement of the verb is in direct conflict with the final placement of the verb; in such a case, there is a positive rule that alters the position of the verb (e.g. verb-fronting in main clauses, cf. Fischer et al. 2000; Axel 2007). In sum, rightward movement of constituents to the position after the verb is acceptable as ‘extended V-final’ order, but leftward movement of the verb is not. The distinction just drawn may appear very neat in theory, but it is not directly applicable because the surface result will usually be exactly the same in both cases. Consider (5) below: (5) Þa he geseah þæne Hælend (Luke, cl. 1379) when he saw the Saviour   ‘When he saw Jesus’  (Lk 5:12)

It could be the case that the clause-final object in (5) is extraposed or that the verb has undergone some kind of movement to the left, or both processes have happened at the same time.8 It seems impossible to make a principled and well founded decision for all clauses of this kind in our data. Instead, there are a few general assumptions that we can make. First, in cases like (5), it is difficult, if not impossible, to exclude some form of extraposition, and such clauses should, therecan also be found in other works, e.g. van Kemenade (1987). By using a single label, we aim to stress the similarities between the processes and the identical results in the surface order, which is our primary concern. 6.  It seems that information structure may also play a role in some cases of extraposition. However, this is not mentioned in the literature as a potential factor with reference to order of OE and OHG subordinates. In general, information structure is believed to be of lesser relevance in subordinate clauses than in main ones (Bean 1983: 109; Fischer et al. 2000: 109). Thus, we decided not to investigate its role here. 7.  As formulated by Behaghel in the form of ‘das Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder’ (Behaghel’s Law), elements with the same grammatical status are ordered in such a way that the longest element is placed as the last one in a sequence. A more recent formulation of the same rule is the Language-Independent Preferred Order of Constituents (the LIPOC principle): “other things being equal, constituents prefer to be placed in an order of increasing complexity” (Dik 1989 in Hawkins 1994: 119). 8.  Another possible analysis is that the clauses reflect the basic VO order of one of the competing grammars.



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 161

fore, all be treated as possibly involving this process. On the other hand, extraposition must be a positive process that places a particular constituent in the special position at the end of the clause. If so, it should basically affect one constituent only. If we have several elements following the verb, it is unlikely that all of them are specially extraposed. (6) shows such a clause, where leftward movement of the verb is a much more likely interpretation. (6) huuanda in imu ni ardot dher heilego gheist because in him not lives the holy spirit zi mezsse so in uns (Isidor, cl. 765) in measure as in us   ‘Because in him the Holy Spirit does not live in a [small] measure as in us’

The distinction between the clauses where extraposition seems likely and those where it does not is, of course, very important. We will use special labels to describe these element orders. Clauses like (5), which are close enough to V-finality (i.e. presumably involving extraposition, where the non-final surface position of the verb is a side effect), will be called V-prefinal. Clauses like (6) will be called V-early and can be regarded as exceptions to the V-final tendency. V-prefinal clauses like (5) are an ‘extension’ of V-finality, neither typical examples of the putative ‘subordinate order’, nor straightforward exceptions. Let us recall that the classification involves counting constituents from the end of the clause. Thus, a verb in a V-early clause may be placed later (counting from the beginning) than in a V-prefinal clause. Examples (7) and (8) are a good illustration of this paradoxical (though rather infrequent) effect; (7) is classified as a V-early clause (because more than one element follows the verb), while (8) is a V-prefinal clause (because a single constituent follows the verb and thus is analysed as extraposed). (7) þæt he hine sylfne on geweald sealde swylcere frecednysse that he himself into power gave great peril-GEN for þam cuman (Bede, cl. 213) for the stranger   ‘That he exposed himself to great danger for the stranger’

(8) Nibu druhtin uns firleazssi samun (OHG Isidor, cl. 644) if not lord us leaves seed   ‘Unless the lord leaves us seed’

We still need to describe some more difficult cases of ordering of constituents and explain how we classify them. While we focus on subordinate clauses in this chapter, such a clause may have further clauses dependent on it. It must be borne in mind that the typical placement for sentential constituents is at the very end of

162 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

the clause (cf. Behaghel’s Law). Consequently, we do not take dependent clauses (finite or non-finite) into account in our classification. Thus, the first clause in (9) is classified as V-final even though there is a nominal clause following the verb. (9) þa we smealice geþencan sculon, of hwylcre wisan þæm moode hit when we carefully consider should of which way the mind-DAT it gegonge þæs slæpendan (Bede, cl. 1543–1544) come-SBJ the sleeper-GEN   ‘As we should carefully consider, in what way it comes to the mind of the sleeper’

Non-finite verb forms also deserve special treatment. So far in our discussion, we have only considered the position of the finite verb as being of relevance to the analysis. Non-finite verbs in subordinate clauses may precede the finite auxiliary (the clause having straightforward V-final order) or follow it. The ordering AuxV(nfin) at the very end of the clause is present in our data, as shown by (10), and known in the literature. It is often assumed to reflect the process of verb-raising (cf. van Kemenade 1987; Axel 2007). (10) dhazs fater einemu ist dhurahchunt (Isidor, cl. 95) that father only-DAT is revealed   ‘That it is clear to the father only’

While this order diverges from our standard, the strict V-final order (cf. Mitchell 1985: §3911), arguably, it is the least of all possible divergences. The two verbal forms constitute one complex verb phrase (or ‘verb complex’, cf. Robinson 1997: 69) in the clause, and form particular constructions (e.g. passive, perfect) together. The finite and non-finite forms are interrelated; modals co-occur with infinitives, the copula verbs co-occur with participles, etc. Consequently, this particular order will be counted together with V-final throughout the chapter since its closeness to the V-final rule is generally acknowledged. Creating a separate category for such clauses (which we initially did) would unnecessarily complicate the results, especially since these clauses are not numerous in our corpus. In the face of the special treatment of non-finite verbs, we must also qualify one of our earlier assumptions. It seems natural that the reversed order of the verbal forms i.e. V(fin)-V(nfin) is independent from, and can be combined with, extraposition of some other constituent. Thus, if the finite auxiliary is followed by a non-finite verb form and one more constituent, it is treated as an example of the V-prefinal order, as in (11). (11) thaz íuuere namon sint giscribane in himile (Tatian, cl. 2728) that your names are written in heaven   ‘That your names are written in heaven’  (Lk 10:20)



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 163

Quite a different situation obtains when a non-finite verb and some other phrase appear in the reversed order, as in (12). (12) Mid ðam ðe he wolde þæt weorc begynnan (Genesis, cl. 1600) when he wanted this work begin   ‘When he wanted to begin the work’  [no clear source in the Vulgate]

At least some generative analyses would claim verb-projection raising, a process similar to verb-raising, to have taken place in such cases (cf. Pintzuk 1996; Axel 2007). The process is optional (just like verb-raising) and its frequency in OE depends on the type of finite verb, author, text and date of composition (Haeberli & Pintzuk 2012). If we assumed that clauses like (12) are examples of verb-projection raising, it would make sense to treat them as an extension of V-final. However, we chose not to classify such clauses in this way for a number of reasons. First of all, we are primarily concerned with surface order (and the possible influence of Latin on it) and we do not want our classification to allow for too much divergence from it. Clauses like (12) are considerably distant from surface V-finality. Furthermore, it seems that verb-projection raising is not as indisputable a process as might be thought. For clauses like (12), different generative derivations yielding the same surface element order are possible (cf. Haeberli & Pintzuk 2012). According to Pintzuk’s (1999) analysis, the unambiguous cases of verb-projection raising are clauses in which two or more heavy constituents are present before the finite verb or the verb cluster. However, there are only 4 such clauses in our entire corpus (3 in Bede and 1 in Isidor). All this taken together with the optional character of verbprojection raising is a good reason not to include the possible effects of the process in our classification. Consequently, we decided to consider all clauses resembling (12) i.e. with the ordering V(fin)-X-V(nfin) at the end as V-early.9 Summing up, the proposed classification distinguishes three main orders in subordinate clauses: a. V-final (with either a finite verb or a complex verb phrase in the final position) b. V-prefinal (with one extraposed constituent) c. V-early (with more than one constituent in the post-verbal position) 5.2.2 Research questions The overview of the literature on OE and OHG subordinate clauses presented in the section 5.1. allows us to formulate the following research questions: 9.  Altogether there are almost 160 subordinate clauses with the element order as in (12) in our corpus, so the group is, of course, not negligible, but only the said four clauses could be counted as unambiguous cases of verb-projection raising.

164 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

a. b. c. d.

Does the V-final order dominate in subordinate clauses in the analysed texts? How frequent are other orders? Are there differences between types and subtypes of clauses? What clause elements appear post-verbally? Are they characterised by considerable weight? e. Does Latin have an influence on element order in subordinate clauses? In the following sections, we address these questions using the order classification presented and explained above in section 5.1.2. Let us recall that question c) is analysed on two levels of granularity: in section 5.4 the major types of subordinates (adverbial, nominal and relative clauses) are compared, and subtypes of each of the types are analysed separately (sections 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9). For its part, question d) is approached from two different perspectives in two sections (5.5 and 5.6). 5.3 General distribution of element orders The following tables show the aggregate statistics for all types of subordinate clauses in the corpus. Table 1.  All types of subordinates: order distribution. Text

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

Total

Genesis

223 (46.3%)

205 (42.5%)

  54 (11.2%)

482

Bede

564 (66.3%)

168 (19.7%)

119 (14.0%)

851

Luke

379 (67.8%)

142 (25.4%)

38 (6.8%)

559

Tatian

413 (47.9%)

345 (40.0%)

104 (12.1%)

862

Isidor

173 (64.8%)

  64 (24.0%)

  30 (11.2%)

267

Physiologus

  61 (56.5%)

  37 (34.3%)

10 (9.2%)

108

The overall picture provided by Table 1 basically confirms the association of the V-final order and subordination. At the same time, it shows the variation in element order and the limits of V-finality as the ‘subordinate order’. The table presents important (and in many cases statistically significant) differences in order distribution between the analysed texts. Yet, at the most general level, there are also similarities that connect all the translations. The following characterisation applies to all six: the V-final order has the largest share; there is a substantial number of V-prefinal clauses; V-early clauses form a noticeable but small group. The general figures confirm the importance of V-finality in subordinate clauses and show that extraposition (V-prefinal clauses) constitutes the most important alternative to the



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 165

V-final order. Straightforward counterexamples to V-finality (V-early clauses) are not particularly numerous in any of the translations. While all the texts share the properties of order distribution described above, there are clear differences between them. Genesis and Tatian have the lowest percentage of the V-final order (both less than half) and a very high share of V-prefinal clauses (both around 40%). In Genesis, the quantitative difference between these two orders is negligible. The two texts clearly stand out as being the least V-final, while the highest figures for the V-final order are found in Bede, Luke and Isidor. Physiologus is of intermediate character. The quantitative variation reveals textspecific tendencies and no consistent differences between OE and OHG can be claimed on the basis of the overall figures. Let us discuss one other difference between the texts. Bede and Luke may be very close as far as the V-final order is concerned, but differ as to the orders competing with it. Luke has very few V-early clauses, while Bede actually has the highest share of them of all the texts (though its frequency is still only ca. 14%). Thus, the distribution of orders in Bede is intriguing: the text has a sound majority of V-final clauses, but also the largest share of counterexamples. However, as many as 77 V-early clauses in Bede (i.e. the majority) have the same ordering as (12). In other words, they may represent verb-projection raising and, thus, not be the best counterexamples to V-finality. Let us add that this interpretative problem is restricted to Bede – the numbers of clauses with possible verb-projection raising in all the other texts are much lower, both in absolute numbers and percentages. We must, however, emphasise that the design of our classification of orders is somewhat biased. It disfavours the V-early order since only sufficiently long clauses can be classified as such (i.e. the clause must contain at least 2 constituents apart from the verb). To check how strongly this bias influences our view of the data, a separate count has been made only for clauses of three or more constituents. The results are shown in Table 2. This new count removes the bias inherent in our classification. Yet, it must be borne in mind that it ignores a considerable portion of the data. The shorter subordinate clauses, omitted in the count, make up almost 32% of the data. The share of shorter clauses differs among the texts, as shown in Table 2. The percentages of the V-final order are naturally lower than in Table 1. The absolute numbers of V-early clauses are the same since none of them were removed from the count. Consequently, their percentages are higher in all the texts, reaching ca. 20% in Tatian. The second-largest percentage of V-early clauses is found in Bede (18%). On the whole, however, the increases in the share of the V-early order are not overwhelming in any of the texts and do not change the overall status of the V-prefinal order as the main alternative to V-final. That is why we will base our further analysis on all the subordinate clauses (long and short ones) in our sample.

166 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 2.  All types of subordinates: order distribution in longer clauses. Text

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

omitted data

Genesis

133 (36.8%)

174 (48.2%)

  54 (15.0%)

361

25.1%

Bede

400 (61.0%)

137 (20.9%)

119 (18.1%)

656

22.9%

Luke

196 (59.0%)

  98 (29.5%)

  38 (11.4%)

332

40.6%

Tatian

181 (35.4%)

226 (44.2%)

104 (20.4%)

511

40.7%

Isidor

111 (55.5%)

  59 (29.5%)

  30 (15.0%)

200

25.1%

Physiologus

  40 (51.3%)

  28 (35.9%)

  10 (12.8%)

  78

27.8%

5.4 Clause type We will now focus on the particular types of subordinate clauses in each of the texts. In this section, we compare three general types of subordinates: adverbial, nominal and relative clauses. Each of these types may be further subdivided according to either semantic or structural criteria. A more detailed comparison of this kind is performed for each of the three types in sections 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9. Genesis: Table 3 shows the statistics for Genesis. Table 3.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Genesis. Clause type

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

adverbial clauses

85 (38.1%)

108 (48.4%)

30 (13.5%)

223

nominal clauses

53 (47.8%)

  43 (38.7%)

15 (13.5%)

111

relative clauses

85 (57.4%)

  54 (36.5%)

9 (6.1%)

148

Adverbial clauses in this text are particularly weakly V-final, even considering the general character of the text (see Table 1 and 2). The V-final order accounts for only 38% of adverbial clauses and is surpassed by a considerable margin by the V-prefinal order. Relative clauses, on the other hand, are more clearly V-final and have a very low share of the V-early order (half of that of the other two groups). Nominal clauses are intermediate in character in Genesis, but in statistical terms, they are closer to adverbial clauses than to relatives. Bede: Table 4 shows that the dominance of the V-final order in Bede is clear.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 167



Table 4.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Bede. V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

adverbial clauses

Clause type

212 (67.5%)

60 (19.1%)

42 (13.4%)

314

nominal clauses

153 (58.8%)

60 (23.1%)

47 (18.1%)

260

relative clauses

199 (71.8%)

48 (17.3%)

30 (10.8%)

277

In all three types, V-final is the most frequent ordering. Relative clauses are very strongly V-final with a 72% majority (the next figure, that of the V-prefinal order, being a mere 17%). The lowest share of the V-final order may be observed in nominal clauses, but even here it is more than twice as frequent as V-prefinal. Luke: In Table 5, the relevant figures for the last OE text, Luke, are presented. Table 5.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Luke. V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

adverbial clauses

Clause type

145 (67.1%)

58 (26.9%)

13 (6.0%)

216

nominal clauses

  84 (64.6%)

35 (26.9%)

11 (8.5%)

130

relative clauses

150 (70.4%)

49 (23.0%)

14 (6.6%)

213

Relative clauses have the highest share of the V-final order, and nominal clauses have the lowest (but, even so, it is over 64%). Still, the differences between the particular types of subordinates prove to be small, if not negligible (less than 7%). Thus, we may observe that element order in subordinate clauses in Luke is very similar irrespective of clause type. Tatian: Table 6 presents the distribution of element orders in Tatian, the first of the OHG texts. Table 6.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Tatian. V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

adverbial clauses

Clause type

180 (47.4%)

146 (38.4%)

  54 (14.2%)

380

nominal clauses

  78 (55.3%)

  45 (31.9%)

  18 (12.8%)

141

relative clauses

155 (45.5%)

154 (45.2%)

32 (9.4%)

341

In accordance with the generally weak V-finality of the text (cf. Table 1 and 2), the figures for the V-final order are not overwhelmingly high. Only in nominal clauses does this order constitute a majority, and even there only minimally. Adverbial and relative clauses are similar with respect to the V-final order, but the latter have a high share of the V-prefinal order (lower than V-final by just one clause), while V-early is more frequent in the former.

168 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Isidor: When analysing the data for Isidor from Table 7, we notice that relative clauses have the highest figure for the V-final order and the lowest figures for the other orders. Table 7.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Isidor. V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

Total

adverbial clauses

Clause type

81 (63.8%)

32 (25.2%)

14 (11.0%)

127

nominal clauses

41 (57.7%)

18 (25.4%)

12 (16.9%)

  71

relative clauses

51 (73.9%)

14 (20.3%)

4 (5.8%)

  69

The share of V-final in relatives is high indeed (comparable only to that found in the same type in Luke and Bede). In adverbial clauses, the general distribution of orders is similar, though the frequency of V-final is lower. Nominal clauses in Isidor are the least V-final type, and they have the highest share of the V-early order. Physiologus: Table 8 shows the statistics for the last of the texts, Physiologus. Table 8.  Order distribution in subordinate clauses in Physiologus. V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

adverbial clauses

Clause type

40 (63.5%)

14 (22.2%)

  9 (14.3%)

63

nominal clauses

  4 (50.0%)

  4 (50.0%)

0 (0.0%)

 8

relative clauses

17 (45.9%)

19 (51.4%)

1 (2.7%)

37

Adverbial clauses are evidently the most V-final of the three types, while relative clauses are the least V-final, with the V-prefinal order actually slightly surpassing V-final. Some of the data in Physiologus are problematic because of the size of the sample: very little can be said with certainty about nominal clauses because there are just eight of them. Yet, they seem to fit into the general trends in the data, being split equally between the two orders which are generally most common. The only generalisation which can be made on the basis of the data presented above is that in all the OE texts, relative clauses stand out as the most V-final type. The OHG texts do not show any recurrent regularities. When the data from Tables 3-8 were submitted to chi-square tests, it was revealed that the differences between clause types are statistically significant only in Genesis and Bede. The lack of statistical significance in the OHG part of the data to an extent explains away the inconsistencies among these texts. All in all, it seems that factors other than clause type play a more important role in the choice between particular orders in subordinate clauses, especially in OHG.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 169



5.5 Types of post-verbal phrases This section focuses on phrases that appear post-verbally in clauses whose element order was classified as V-prefinal. As we know from the tables in the preceding sections, this element order constitutes the main alternative to V-final in all the texts and in all the major subtypes of subordinate clauses. In a few groups, there are actually more V-prefinal clauses than V-final ones. Thus, it is worth examining what types of phrases actually appear after the verb in subordinate clauses. According to our assumptions (see section 5.1.4.), the post-verbal placement of the phrases under scrutiny results (at least potentially) from the process of extraposition. The most important observation to be made on the basis of the data presented below is that extraposition in both the OE and the OHG texts turns out to be very liberal, to recall Axel’s (2007: 80) formulation. From a qualitative perspective, there seem to be hardly any meaningful limits as far as phrase category is concerned. Apart from prepositional phrases (mostly in adverbial function), we find a sizable representation of objects, complements and a non-negligible number of subjects in the clause-final position in all the texts. Table 9.  Post-verbal phrases in V-prefinal clauses (clause constituents). Phrase type

Genesis

Bede

Luke

Tatian

Isidor

Physiologus

adverbials

75 (36.6%) 52 (30.9%) 45 (31.7%) 103 (29.8%) 19 (29.7%)

16 (43.2%)

complements

50 (24.4%) 41 (24.4%) 43 (30.3%)   73 (21.1%) 19 (29.7%)

  5 (13.5%)

direct objects

37 (18.0%) 28 (16.7%) 28 (19.7%)   85 (24.6%) 10 (15.6%)

  8 (21.6%)

subjects

21 (10.2%) 18 (10.7%)   9 (6.3%)

  30 (8.7%)

  8 (12.5%)

  2 (5.4%)

prep. objects

18 (8.8%)

18 (10.7%) 10 (7.0%)

  30 (8.7%)

  6 (9.4%)

  6 (16.2%)

11 (6.5%)

  7 (4.9%)

  24 (6.9%)

  2 (3.1%)

  0 (0.0%)

168

142

345

64

37

indirect objects   4 (1.9%) TOTAL

205

Table 9 shows the proportions of post-verbal phrases found in V-prefinal clauses from all the translations. When presented together, the similarity of all the texts in this respect is quite striking. In all the translations, the three most common post-verbal phrases are adverbials, complements and direct objects. The post-verbal adverbials are mostly prepositional phrases, the classical targets of extraposition (Pintzuk and Kroch 1985 after van Kemenade 1987: 40), as in (13). Phrases classified as complements mostly co-occur with the copula verbs wesan/beon for OE and wesan/werdan for OHG, as in (14); hence, their clause-final placement is also quite natural (the proportion of post-verbal complements is lowest in Physiologus, but this seems to be

170 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

related to the limited number of clauses in the text). The third most frequent type of post-verbal phrases are direct objects, as in (15) and (16). (13) þæt he ferde to hys huse (Luke, cl. 1448) that he went to his house   ‘That he would come into his house’  (Lk 8:41) (14) endi dher in dheru selbun burc uuard uuordan and this-M in the same city was made allero odhmuodigosto (Isidor, cl. 469) all-GEN humble-SUP   ‘And he in the same city became most humble of all’ (Tatian, cl. 2768) (15) after thiu her gilegit thie fundamenta after he laid the foundations   ‘After he laid the foundations’  (Lk 14:29) (16) þæt ðu me ne derige ne minum æftergencgum that you-SG me not hurt nor my successors ne minum ofspringe (Genesis, cl. 1531)10 nor my offspring   ‘That you will not hurt me, nor my posterity, nor my stock’  (Gen 21:23)

The less common types of post-verbal phrases identified in the analysed translations are subjects, prepositional objects and indirect objects, illustrated by (17), (18) and (19). (17) gyf þær beoþ feowertig (Genesis, cl. 1233) if there are forty   ‘If there are forty’  (Gen 18:29) (18) þæt mon hine menge mid his steopmeder (Bede, cl. 1107) that man REFL mingle with his stepmother   ‘That a man marries his stepmother’ quidit sinemo bruoder (Tatian, cl. 1257) (19) Ther the this-M who tells his brother-DAT   ‘Who says to his brother’  (Mt 5:22)

No post-verbal indirect objects are attested in Physiologus, but this category is the smallest one in all the other texts, so its absence here can surely be linked to the shortness of the text. What seems notable to us is rather that all the other types are attested despite the small size of the sample. This is, in fact, good evidence that such variety was indeed grammatical and natural in both OHG and OE subordinates.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 171



Table 10.  Post-verbal phrases in V-prefinal clauses (phrase types). Phrase types

Genesis

Bede

Luke

Tatian

Isidor

Physiologus

PPs

  88 (42.9%) 73 (43.5%) 55 (38.7%) 133 (38.6%) 27 (42.2%)

20 (54.1%)

non-PP adverbials

   5 (2.4%)

  1 (0.6%)

  3 (2.1%)

   7 (2.0%)

  2 (3.1%)

  1 (2.7%)

pronouns

   1 (0.5%)

  3 (1.8%)

11 (7.7%)

  14 (4.1%)

  0 (0%)

  0 (0%)

other

111 (54.1%) 91 (54.2%) 73 (51.4%) 191 (55.4%) 35 (54.7%)

TOTAL

205

168

142

345

64

16 (43.2%) 37

Table 10 presents the post-verbal phrases in terms of structural classification, picking out three categories: prepositional phrases (most expected) as well as pronouns and adverbials other than prepositional phrases (least expected). It turns out that the post-verbal elements are indeed very often prepositional phrases. This group involves almost all post-verbal adverbials, as in (13), as well as all prepositional objects, as in (18), and some complements. The percentages range from ca. 39% in Tatian and Luke to 54% in Physiologus, a very considerable share of the post-verbal phrases. On the other hand, if prepositional phrases are considered to be the typical extraposed phrases, almost a half (in all texts except Physiologus) is not a particularly striking proportion. The putatively marginal types of extraposition (all other kinds of phrases) are rather well represented in our corpus. On the whole, we can say that prepositional phrases in OE and OHG are indeed often extraposed, but extraposition is more broadly applicable in the two languages insofar as various other phrase types may be extraposed as well, and the frequency with which this takes place is not marginal by any reasonable standards. In accordance with our expectations, Table 10 shows that pronouns, atypical in the post-verbal position, are quite rare in all the translations, though they are completely absent only in Isidor and Physiologus, the two shortest texts in our study corpus. Among the 29 post-verbal pronouns identified in the whole corpus, only two are subjects. One shown in (20) comes from Bede; let us note that the indefinite pronoun is modified by a non-finite clause, giving rise to a relatively heavy noun phrase and therefore its placement ceases to appear exceptional. (20) swa swa bi þam monnum is hwæthwugu to aræfnenne, þa as in these men is something to tolerate who ðurh unwisnesse synne fremmað (Bede, cl. 1160–1162) through ignorance sins commit   ‘As in those men, who sin through ignorance, something is to be tolerated’



172 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

The other example comes from Luke, and, as shown in (21), it is a demonstrative pronoun which, as a stressed element, need not be restricted to the pre-verbal position. (21) Wenst þu hwæt is þes (Luke, cl. 1368) know-2SG you-SG what is this   ‘Do you know who this is?’  (Lk 8:25)

The remaining 27 post-verbal pronouns are objects and classify mostly as personal pronouns. They are especially frequent in the gospel translations, i.e. Luke and Tatian, as in (22) and (23). In Tatian, all such clauses are clearly modelled on the source text. In Luke, some, including (22), are independent uses. (22) þæt heo fylste me (Luke, cl. 1949) that she help-SBJ me   ‘That she help me’  (Lk 10:40) (23) oba thu nidarfallenti bétos mih (Tatian, cl. 833–834) if you-SG down-falling adore me   ‘If falling down you will adore me’  (Mt 4:9)

Therefore, even though pronouns are very infrequent among the post-verbal phrases, we cannot say that extraposition of such light elements is not possible in OE. The situation in OHG is less clear: post-verbal pronouns are not used in Isidor or Physiologus, while all the examples from Tatian are influenced by the source text. As has been said, the vast majority of post-verbal adverbials in all the texts are prepositional phrases, but not all of them. As shown in Table 10, in all the texts, there is at least one post-verbal adverbial which is not a prepositional phrase, and some of these are light adverbs, thought to be very atypical in this position. In Genesis, 3 of the non-prepositional adverbials are light adverbs, as in (24), while (25) is the only such clause from Luke. (24) ðæt þu ne secge eft (Genesis, cl. 897) that you-SG not say then   ‘So that then you do not say’  (Gen 14:23) (25) Eadige synd ge ðe hingriað nu (Luke, cl. 895–896) blessed are you-PL that hunger now   ‘Blessed are you that hunger now’  (Lk 6:21)

Such placement of an adverb is very rare in the OE texts of our corpus. In the same passage from Luke that contains (25), we find parallel clauses, but with the V-final order in the subordinate clause, as in (26).



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 173

(26) Eadige synt ge ðe nu wepað (Luke, cl. 898–899) blessed are you-PL that now weep   ‘Blessed are you that weep now’  (Lk 6:21)

However scarce and atypical, such clauses are important because they show that even light, mostly monosyllabic adverbs are subject to extraposition. This is rare, but undoubtedly has support in the data. Single occurrences of the structure can also be found in the OHG translations, cf. (27) and (28). (27) Thiu stuont tho (Tatian, cl. 2574) who stood then   ‘Who stood then’  (Lk 10:40) (28) dhazs so ofto so dhea christes fiant dhesiu heilegun foraspel chihorant that as often as the christ’s enemies the holy prophecy hear umbi christes chiburt, so bifangolode sindun simbles (Isidor, cl. 486–487) about christ’s birth so cornered are always   ‘(It is true) that when the enemies of Christ hear the holy prophecy about his birth, they are always so cornered (that…)’

In Bede, (29) is the only post-verbal adverbial which is not a prepositional phrase, and it is a noun phrase used adverbially; all non-prepositional post-verbal adverbials found in Tatian except (27) are similar to the example from Bede, as in (30). (29) þæt he hæfde feower & twentig wintra (Bede, cl. 1708) that he had four and twenty winters   ‘That he had for twenty-four years’ (30) Inti mit thiu her thô fasteta fiorzug tago inti fiorzug nahto (Tatian, cl. 804) and when he then fasted forty days and forty nights   ‘And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights’  (Mt 4:2)

As far as post-verbal subjects are concerned, they are supposed to be more frequent in “contexts which are ‘unaccusative’” (Fischer et al. 2000: 116–117 for OE) or “‘passivized’ or ergative predicates, i.e. constructions that can be regarded as unaccusative in a wider sense” (Axel 2007: 90 for OHG). This putative link is rather difficult to analyse since the cited authors apply the term ‘unaccusative’ quite freely and are open about it; in Fischer et al. (2000: 116), the authors call it a ‘cover term’ for constructions without agent subjects (including copula verbs, motion verbs and auxiliaries in passive structures). In our data, most post-verbal subjects do indeed occur in clauses with verbs that may be classified broadly as unaccusative, as in (31) and (32).

174 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(31) of þam bið geweorht se weolocreada tælgh (Bede, cl. 15) of which is made the purple dye   ‘From which the purple dye is made’ (32) endi dhazs sundono uuerdhe endi (Isidor, cl. 508) and that sin-DAT becomes end   ‘And that the end of all sin comes’

However, in all the translations except Luke we also found some post-verbal subjects in clauses which cannot be classified as unaccusative, as in (33) – (38). (33) þe him geswutelode God (Genesis, cl. 1592) which him showed God   ‘Which God had shown him’  (Gen 22:9) (34) & in scyldum mec cende min modor (Bede, cl. 1444) and in sin me bore my mother   ‘And in sin did my mother bear me’ (Tatian, cl. 2168) (35) vvuolihhu imo teta ther heilant how much him did the saviour   ‘How great things Jesus had done to him’  (Lk 8:39) (36) Dhazs ni saget apostolus (Isidor, cl. 72) that not says apostle   ‘So that an apostle will not say’ (37) also dir tet panttera (Phys., cl. 69) as then does panther   ‘Just as the panther does’

The examples from Tatian are not very convincing because in all of them, the clause-final position of the subject is clearly modelled on the Latin, but the other texts use the structure more independently. Therefore, the link between post-verbal subjects and the semantics of the verb seems to be a relatively strong tendency rather than a strict rule. To sum up, the most important finding to be formulated on the basis of the present analysis is that there are no significant differences between the analysed texts with respect to extraposed constituents. There are, as we have seen in Tables 1-8, differences in the proportion of the V-prefinal order in the individual texts. However, when only V-prefinal clauses are taken into consideration, there is great uniformity in the distribution of constituent types. There are no statistically significant differences among the OE texts, nor among the OHG texts. When the two languages are compared, there are still no differences to be observed: both



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 175

languages allow a rich variety of constituents to be extraposed and both show very similar proportions of the types of constituents actually extraposed. 5.6 Weight of phrases In this section, we aim to investigate the role of phrase weight in determining the order of subordinate clauses in the texts from our corpus. Among the factors mentioned in the literature in the context of element order in general, and OE and OHG subordinates in particular, this seems one of the least controversial. The problem is how to approach weight in actual analysis. Its values in principle constitute a continuous scale, which makes the quantitative analysis and interpretation of data much more complicated than in the case of a discrete categorical division. Heavy phrases are basically assumed to be long phrases, with length measured either in number of words or in number of syllables. However, not only phrase length matters with regard to weight, but also the functional character of the words. Thus, a one-word one-syllable pronoun will generally be deemed lighter than a one-word one-syllable lexical noun.10 For the purposes of this study, we decided to measure length in the number of words because it seems to be a more viable measure than length in the number of syllables, at least for weight considered in the context of extraposition and similar processes (Stallings & MacDonald 2011). As a result of this decision, some potentially heavy phrases (such as very long words standing alone) are not taken into account in the analysis, though the frequency of such polysyllabic words is rather low in our corpus. This also proved more fortunate from the technical point of view because it was possible to extract phrases containing a given number of words from our corpus automatically. Our way of tackling the problem of the continuous scale of weight is to assume a cut-off point in the analysis and reduce the scope of the research to phrases which contain at least three words. Thus, the study presented in this section is an approximation of the full assessment of the influence of weight on the order of subordinate clauses, but we believe it to be a sufficiently close approximation. The important aspect of this approach is that for this part of the research, we searched for all subordinate clauses that include phrases of at least three words in length. Thus, all the clauses taken into account here have at least one phrase consisting of at least three words (we excluded three-word conjunctions). Henceforth, we shall refer to these phrases as ‘heavy phrases’. 10.  Stress and accentuation may be of significance here (pronouns being typically weakly stressed), but it must be borne in mind that the actual oral production of historical documents can be reconstructed only with a considerable margin of uncertainty.

176 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 11 shows what portions of the whole set of subordinate clauses are constituted by clauses with heavy phrases. Table 11.  The frequency of clauses with phrases of at least three words in length. Text Genesis

clauses with heavy phrases

all subordinates

157 (32.6%)

482

Bede

373 (43.8%)

851

Luke

124 (22.2%)

559

Tatian

168 (19.5%)

862

Isidor

110 (41.2%)

267

Physiologus

  39 (36.1%)

108

The percentage of all subordinates that are investigated here is an important piece of information, as it provides a perspective with which to view the results of the section. In no text do clauses with heavy phrases constitute even a half of all subordinates. However, they are above 40% in Bede and Isidor. In the two gospel texts, Luke and Tatian, their incidence is low, amounting to only about 20%. Thus, the results we get here are certainly of greater importance for the understanding of the syntax of the former pair of texts than the latter. It may be the case that a clause contains heavy phrases without any of them being clause-final. Thus, in a given clause, the weight of the phrase may or may not be linked with its final position. Consequently, in this section, we divide the analysed clauses according to their clause-final phrases. The major divisions are: heavy phrase, verb or some other phrase.11 Genesis: The data for Genesis (Table  12) show a clear connection between phrase weight and extraposition. Table 12.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Genesis. heavy phrase

        127 (80.9%)

verb

         18 (11.5%)

other phrase total

        12 (7.6%) 157

11.  Clause-final non-finite verb forms are treated specially. If the ordering at the end of the clause is V(fin)-V(nfin) and so the clause is classified as V-final (cf. the discussion of (11)), such a clause is counted together with clauses that have a clause-final finite verb. Otherwise, the clause in question is counted with the ones that have a clause-final other phrase (cf. the discussion of (12)).



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 177

When a heavy phrase is present in the clause, it is placed clause-finally in an overwhelming majority of cases (more than 80%), as in (38). The few remaining clauses are mostly V-final, like (39). (38) oð ðæt hi gecyrdon to hys huse (Genesis, cl. 1281) until they came to his house   ‘Until they came to his house’  (Gen 19:3) (Genesis, cl. 546) (39) ðe binnan ðam arce wæron that inside the ark were   ‘That were in the ark’  (Gen 7:23)

In Genesis, it is seldom the case that a clause contains a heavy phrase and neither this phrase nor the verb is placed clause-finally, but such clauses are present in the sample, as exemplified by (40) and (41). (40) þæt he hæfde þæs broðor fotwolman on handa (Genesis, cl. 1758) that he had the brother’s sole in hand   ‘That he held his brother’s foot in his hand’  (Gen 25:25) (41) nu þu þinne ancennedan sunu ofslean woldest now that you-SG your only son slay would for him (Genesis, cl.1609) for him   ‘Now that you wanted to slay your only son for his sake’  (Gen 22:12)

This group of clauses appears in principle to be made up of strong counterexamples to weight-sensitivity of element order, but, as (40) shows, the picture is more complex. In this clause, the heavy phrase þæs broðor fotwolman is placed after the finite verb, and another phrase (on handa) is placed still later. The clause is a good counterexample to the V-finality of subordinates12 but the position of the heavy phrase is not clause-final, though it does follow the verb. (41), by contrast, does not conform to the generally observed behaviour of heavy phrases. The phrase þinne ancennedan sunu appears early in the clause, before two verbal forms and the final phrase for him. Bede: In Bede, illustrated by Table 13, a fair percentage of clauses have heavy phrases in the clause-final position.

12.  Weak V-finality is not particularly surprising in the Genesis text, cf. Table 1.

178 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 13.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Bede. heavy phrase

        144 (38.6%)

verb

        184 (49.3%)

other phrase

         45 (12.1%)

total

373

Yet, these cases are outnumbered by V-final clauses like (42) and (43). The V-final tendency is thus very strong and often overrides the role of weight in constituent placement. The examples offered are meant to be highly representative ones. In (42), although the finite verb is a form of the copula and we have a five-wordlong heavy phrase, both factors conducive to extraposition, the clause is V-final. Similarly, (43) contains two heavy phrases, but still follows the V-final order. (42) þæt seo stow swa wlitig & swa fæger wære (Bede, cl. 321) that the place so comely and so fair were   ‘That the place should be so comely and so fair’ (43) ðæs ðe Gaius, oðre naman Iulius, se casere þæt ylce ealond since Gaius other name Julius the emperor the same island gesohte (Bede, cl. 421) sought   ‘Since the emperor Gaius, also called Julius, landed on the island’

Clauses containing heavy phrases in the final position, exemplified by (44), are also numerous in the text. Yet, the percentage of about 39% shows that the role of weight in determining element order is limited in Bede. (44) þæt þu Drihtne brohtest micel gestreon that you-SG Lord-DAT brought great treasure haligra saula (Bede, cl. 1748) holy souls-GEN   ‘So that you brought to the Lord a great treasure of holy souls’

As shown in Table 13, a small portion of the discussed clauses have some other constituent in the clause-final position, as in (45). It seems that the discrepancy between this group of clauses and the ones with a clause-final heavy phrase (which are three times more numerous) is positive evidence that phrase weight does have some impact on the element order of the text.



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 179

(45) swa þæt oft on middre nihte geflit cymeð so that often on mid-night question comes þam behealdendum (Bede, cl. 31) the spectators-DAT   ‘So that often at midnight a question arises among the spectators’

Luke: The data for Luke, as presented in Table 14, in general corroborate the influence of weight on element order. Table 14.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Luke. heavy phrase

         75 (60.5%)

verb

         40 (32.3%)

other phrase total

         9 (7.3%) 124

Of all subordinate clauses containing heavy phrases, 60% place the heavy phrase at the end, as in (46). feoll on þa ðornas (Luke, cl. 1311) (46) þe which fell on the thorns   ‘Which fell among thorns’  (Lk 8:14)

The number of V-final clauses in the data is much lower than those with the heavy phrase in the final position. On the one hand, this proves that in Luke, weight does usually override the general rule of V-finality (which proved very strong in this text, cf. Table 5). On the other hand, the remaining V-final clauses are still quite numerous in the data, (47) being a representative example. (47) þæt he on mihte & on mægene unclænum gastum that he in authority and in power unclean spirits bebyt (Luke, cl. 598) command   ‘That with authority and power he commands unclean spirits’  (Lk 4:36)

There are just a few clauses that represent the remaining category of ‘other phrase’. For example, in (48), despite the presence of the heavy adverbial on Tyro & on Sidone, another non-verbal phrase is clause-final. (48) gif on Tyro & on Sidone gewordene wæron þa menegu (Luke, cl. 1832) if in Tyre and in Sidon become were the mighty works   ‘If in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the mighty works’  (Lk 10:13)

180 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Tatian: With Table 15, which presents the data for Tatian, we now turn to the OHG texts. Table 15.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Tatian. heavy phrase

        132 (78.6%)

verb

         19 (11.3%)

other phrase

         17 (10.1%)

total

168

Tatian shows a strong tendency for the final placement of heavy phrases. In clauses that include heavy phrases, almost 80% have these phrases in the final position, as in (49). (49) uzouh thaz her giuuizscaf sageti fon demo liohte (Tatian, cl. 632) but that he testimony said of the light   ‘But that he was to give testimony of the light’  (Jn 1:8)

V-final clauses form a very small percentage of the data. We must recall that V-finality is not strong in this text generally, but it is even weaker when weight comes into play. In (50), the heavy phrase mit iro hantun is followed not only by the verb, but also by a pronominal object. Thus, the clause clearly goes against the tendencies associated with heavy phrases. However, this is a rare case in Tatian. (50) thaz sie mit iro hantun thih nemen (Tatian, cl. 824) that they with their hands you-SG take   ‘That they shall take you with their hands  (Lk 4:11)

There are also some clauses in Tatian in which neither the heavy phrase nor the verb is clause-final, as in (51), where the heavy phrase sun odo tohter follows the verb, but is still followed by a later phrase. (51) inti thie thar minnot sun odo tohter ubar mih (Tatian, cl. 1842) and who loves son or daughter over me   ‘And who loves son or daughter more than me’  (Mt 10:37)

Isidor: Table 16 shows that in Isidor, the largest group among the clauses containing heavy phrases are the V-final ones, such as (52).



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 181

Table 16.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Isidor. heavy phrase

         40 (36.4%)

verb

         56 (50.9%)

other phrase

         14 (12.7%)

total

110

Clauses with a heavy phrase at the end are clearly less common, though they still account for more than a third of the data. This group is exemplified by (53). (52) Oh huuanda sie mit dhes iudeischin muotes hartnissu christan but because they with the Jewish soul’s hardness christ arsluogun (Isidor, cl. 542) slew   ‘But because they slew Christ with the hardness of the Jewish soul’

(Isidor, cl. 161) (53) dhazs dhiz ist chiquhedan in unseres druhtines nemin in our lord’s name   that this is said ‘That this is said in the name of our lord’

On the whole, the influence of weight, although noticeable, does not appear to be very strong in this text. The last category distinguished in the table, that of other clause-final phrases, clearly forms a minority, but a non-negligible one, as in (54). (54) dhazs dher selbo gheist ist got (Isidor, cl. 263) that the same ghost is god   ‘That the Holy Ghost is also God’

An interesting circumstance is that clauses where the sequence of a finite and nonfinite verb is clause-final are particularly numerous in Isidor. There are 14 of them and they constitute about 13% of all subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in the whole text. Let us note that they contribute significantly to the domination of V-final clauses in the analysed sample shown in Table 16. (55) is a relevant example. (Isidor, cl. 628) (55) dhazs ir in sines edhiles fleische quhoman scolda uuerdan should be   that he in his noble body come ‘That he should come in his noble body’

One may note that in (55), the weight of the adverbial in sines edhiles fleische does not have any impact on its position: it is followed by all three verb forms in the clause.

182 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Physiologus: The data for Physiologus, the final text, are presented in Table 17. Table 17.  Final phrases in subordinate clauses with heavy phrases in Physiologus. heavy phrase

        27 (69.2%)

verb

        10 (25.7%)

other phrase total

        2 (5.1%) 39

It is possible to observe a certain effect of weight on the order of elements. Almost as many as 70% of clauses that contain a heavy phrase have this phrase placed clause-finally. One of them is presented in (56) below. (56) Daz er rasta an demo menisgemo lihamin (Phys., cl. 27) that he rest in the human body   ‘That he rests in his human body’

About a quarter of the clauses in the analysed sample are V-final despite the presence of heavy phrases like (57). (57) unzin si des uunnisamin lides so gelustigot uuerdin (Phys., cl. 122) until they the beautiful song-GEN so deluded are   ‘Until they are so deluded with their singing’

Finally, there are just two clauses in this text where neither the verb phrase as a whole, nor the heavy phrase is placed clause-finally, (58) being one of them. (58) noh ez nemag ze neheinero uuis geuanen uuerdin (Phys., cl. 79) nor it not-may in no way caught become   ‘Nor may it [the unicorn] be captured in any way’

To sum up, the comparison of the influence of weight on element order in the texts of our corpus reveals, first of all, clear text-specific preferences. Two texts, Genesis and Tatian, show a strong effect of weight. When heavy phrases are present in a clause, they are indeed placed at the end of the clause in an overwhelming majority of cases (about 80% in both texts). In two other texts, Bede and Isidor, the effect of weight is noticeable (see below), but clearly limited and countered by the V-final rule. Luke and Physiologus are both intermediate in the distribution of clausefinal phrases. They show an evident impact of weight on element order, but the effect is weaker than in Genesis and Tatian. The distribution in both intermediate texts differs significantly from the ‘extreme’ texts in the respective languages. Thus, the rate of clause-final placement of heavy phrases proves to be text-specific.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 183



Table 18 brings together the percentages for V-final clauses included in the present analysis (from Tables 12-17), and the percentage of the V-final order in all subordinates (from Table 1). Table 18.  The effect of weight and the V-final order. V-final order in clauses with heavy phrases V-final order in all subordinates Genesis

  18 (11.5%)

223 (46.3%)

Bede

184 (49.3%)

564 (66.3%)

Luke

  40 (32.3%)

379 (67.8%)

Tatian

  19 (11.3%)

413 (47.9%)

Isidor

  56 (50.9%)

173 (65.0%)

Physiologus

  10 (25.7%)

  61 (56.5%)

A drop in the frequency of the V-final order under the influence of heavy elements is evident in all the texts. Even in Bede and Isidor, where the effect of weight is weakest, the difference is substantial. It comes as no surprise that the drops prove statistically significant in all six texts. Thus, the influence of weight on element order in subordinates is, beyond doubt, felt in all the texts, and in both languages, though the exact extent of the effect in quantitative terms varies. Finally, let us consider how important weight actually is if all the subordinate clauses (including those without heavy phrases) are included in the calculations. As we know from Table 11, the texts vary in the frequency of the clauses relevant for the analysis performed in this section. For example, Bede has twice as many clauses with heavy phrases as Luke. In Table 19, the effect of weight (clause-final placement of the heavy phrase) is counted against the whole set of subordinate clauses. Table 19.  The impact of weight in all subordinates. Text

clauses with clause-final heavy phrase

% of all subordinates

Genesis

127

26.3%

Bede

144

16.9%

Luke

  75

13.4%

Tatian

132

15.3%

Isidor

  40

15.0%

Physiologus

  27

26.0%

We can conclude that the influence of weight accounts for the largest proportions of subordinate clauses in Genesis and Physiologus. In both texts, the order

184 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

is directly affected by phrase weight in slightly more than a quarter of all subordinates, so, although weight is by no means the main factor determining element order, its role cannot be denied. The remaining four texts show percentages of around 15%. While the final rates are very similar, they can be attributed to different causes: Luke and Tatian simply have the smallest number of subordinate clauses with heavy phrases, whereas in Bede and Isidor, the effect of weight is quite weak. In both these texts, more clauses with heavy phrases have the verb at the end than the heavy phrase itself (cf. Tables 13 and 16). Consequently, the importance of the observed effect within all subordinates is diminished. This is somewhat paradoxical since Bede and Isidor have the largest relative numbers of clauses with heavy phrases (Bede also has the largest absolute number of them) and thus have the greatest scope for the effect of weight to operate. To sum up, in this section, we have shown that as far as the role of phrase weight is concerned, all the texts are similar qualitatively: the influence of weight on element order makes itself felt in all of them. Yet, the texts vary considerably in quantitative terms and there are no evident language-specific tendencies. The lack of obvious differences between the two languages may reflect something more general about weight and its role in (re-)shaping the order of linguistic elements. It seems that the effect of weight, while present and demonstrable in many languages, usually remains optional13 even if it is very strong in actual text counts. It is subject to the speaker or writer’s preferences as well as stylistic considerations. Thus, it is quite natural to find differences between texts of the same language. 5.7 Subtypes of adverbial clauses In this section, we elaborate on the topic of section 5.4, where the three major types of subordinates (adverbial, nominal and relative clauses) were compared, and discuss the subtypes of adverbial clauses, which are divided according to their semantic function in the superordinate clauses. Subtypes of nominal and relative clauses are investigated in the following two sections. On the basis of the literature, it is to be expected, in both OE and OHG, that particular subtypes will differ with regard to linear order. This is perhaps most copiously described in the case of certain adverbial clauses (see section 5.1). Table 20 summarises the division of adverbial clauses in our study corpus.

13.  Note that e.g. weight-related shifts in Present Day English are generally optional. Also, Hawkins (1994: 20) notes that English Heavy-NP shift is not a grammatical rule in the strict sense because it is not captured well by grammatical categories.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 185



Table 20.  Semantic subtypes of adverbial clauses in the texts. Genesis

Bede

Luke

all OE

Tatian

Isidor

Phys.

all OHG

cause

  35

  56

  49

140

101

  25

 1

127

comparison

   0

   1

   1

   2

   5

   0

 0

   5

concession

   2

  12

   3

  17

   1

   3

 0

   4

clauses of

condition

  28

  60

  16

104

  50

  15

 2

  67

consequence

  47

  58

  42

147

  82

  28

15

  125

frequency

   1

   0

   0

   1

   0

   1

 0

   1

manner

  22

  24

  10

  56

  20

   9

 8

  37

space

   3

   2

   0

   5

  10

   1

 1

  12

time

  85

101

  95

281

111

  45

36

192

TOTAL

223

314

216

753

380

127

63

570

It is evident that once the clauses are classified, many of the categories turn out to be very small in number so little can be said about them. The situation is most obvious in the case of clauses of frequency, with exactly one example per language: (59) swa oft swa wyt ferdon to fyrlynum eardum (Genesis, cl. 1439) as often as we-DU went to distant lands   ‘Every time we went to distant lands’  (Gen 20:13) (60) so ofto so dhea christes fiant dhesiu heilegun foraspel chihorant as often as the christ’s enemies the holy prophecy hear umbi christes chiburt (Isidor, cl. 487) about Christ’s birth   ‘Every time the enemies of Christ hear the holy prophecy about his birth’

The two clauses provide no basis for making any viable generalisations. Clauses of comparison, concession and space are also very poorly represented. Causes of manner and condition are better attested; the former class having a low though not minimal frequency in Physiologus, Isidor and Luke (around 10), whereas the latter is well represented in all but Physiologus (just 2 clauses). The remaining subtypes, clauses of consequence and cause, and especially clauses of time, are represented fairly well in all the texts. However, restricting our analysis to only three types out of nine seemed too narrow so we decided to compare the five more numerous subtypes: clauses of time, consequence, cause, condition and manner, bearing in mind the reservations about the last two. One more explanation is in order. The label ‘clause of consequence’ might not be immediately obvious. We use it as a cover term for clauses of purpose and result because it is not always easy to distinguish between them. As far as OE is concerned,

186 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

the distinction is sometimes based on the use of mood (cf. Mitchell 1985: §1928), but there are exceptions, some of which turn up in our analysis. Mitchell criticises the reliance on mood and calls it a “mechanical and circular test” (1985: §2803). Callaway goes as far as to question the objective nature of the distinction: the difference between Final [purpose] and Consecutive [result] often consists only in the point of view. What is final from the point of view of the doer is consecutive from the point of view of the spectator.  (Callaway 1933 after Mitchell 1985: §2802)

Our use of the joint category ‘clauses of consequence’ is also consistent with Bernhardt & Davis, who consider distinguishing the two subtypes ‘impractical’ in their analysis of Tatian (1997: 82). We shall now compare the distribution of orders in adverbial clauses of the more numerous subtypes in each of the texts. Genesis: Table 21 presents the data for Genesis. Table 21.  Distribution of orders in the selected subtypes of adverbial clauses in Genesis. clauses of time

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

Total

28 (32.9%)

49 (57.6%)

8 (9.4%)

85

consequence

21 (44.6%)

17 (36.2%)

  9 (19.1%)

47

cause

  7 (20.0%)

18 (51.4%)

10 (28.6%)

35

condition

11 (39.3%)

15 (53.6%)

2 (7.1%)

28

manner

15 (68.2%)

  7 (31.8%)

0 (0.0%)

22

The text does not abound in V-final subordinates in general, and this applies even more to adverbial clauses, as is clearly reflected in the data for the particular subtypes. Still, there is great variation in the order distribution between the subtypes. The V-prefinal order is the most frequent one in clauses of time, cause and condition, as represented by (61), an adverbial clause of cause. In all these subtypes, V-prefinal clauses constitute slightly more than half of the whole category. (61) For ðan ðe ðu gehyrdes ðines wifes stemne (Genesis, cl. 272) because you-SG heard your wife’s voice   ‘Because you listened to the voice of your wife’  (Gen 3:17)

As already stated, clauses of cause are predominantly V-prefinal. More interestingly, they also have a very substantial portion of the V-early order shown in (62) below. This makes this category quite unique: for the first time in the course of our analysis, the frequency of V-early is higher than that of V-final (28% vs. 20%).

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 187



(62) for þan ðe heora ægðer sealde oþrum hys wed ðær (Genesis, cl. 1556) because them either gave other-DAT his oath there   ‘Because both of them gave their oath to each other’  (Gen 21:31)

Conditional clauses in Genesis pose a considerable problem. (63) represents a whole series of very similar semi-formulaic clauses from one passage where Abraham and God discuss the lack of virtues among Sodomites. (63) gyf þær beoð þrittig rihtwisra (Genesis, cl. 1242) if there are thirty righteous   ‘If there are thirty righteous people there’  (Gen 18:30)

The passage contains 15 conditional clauses, which is more than half of all the conditionals in the analysed part of Genesis, and as many as 12 of them are V-prefinal. Hence, the high figure for this order depends on the inclusion of the passage in the analysed sample. The conditionals in Genesis are thus a model example of the impact that a local pattern may have on the general statistics and the interpretative problems this creates. The figures for conditional clauses in Table  21 are therefore not completely reliable. The remaining two subtypes, clauses of manner and consequence, are more V-final than the other types. Clauses of manner stand out among all adverbial clauses in Genesis because the V-final order accounts for a clear majority of them, as in (64). (64) swa swa hyne hys hlaford het (Genesis, cl. 1689) as him-ACC his lord ordered   ‘As his lord ordered him’  [no clear source in the Vulgate]

Bede: Adverbial clauses in Bede are on the whole clearly V-final, as shown in Table 22, and the variation among the subtypes is rather limited. Table 22.  Element order of selected subtypes of adverbials in Bede. clauses of

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

Total

time

73 (72.3%)

16 (15.8%)

12 (11.9%)

101

consequence

32 (56.1%)

15 (26.3%)

10 (17.5%)

  57

cause

33 (58.9%)

11 (19.6%)

12 (21.4%)

  56

condition

40 (66.7%)

15 (25.0%)

5 (8.3%)

  60

manner

20 (83.3%)

  3 (12.5%)

1 (4.2%)

  24

V-final clauses dominate in each subtype, and form a large majority among clauses of manner, time and condition, as exemplified by (65).

188 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(65) mid þy usse ealdras, þa ærestan men, in neorxnawonge when our parents the first men in paradise agylton (Bede, cl. 1231) sinned   ‘When our parents, the first of mankind, sinned in Paradise’

In (65), the subject is composed of two noun phrases forming an appositional construction and the adverbial contains a long noun. Still, none of these rather heavy elements is placed after the verb and the clause remains V-final. This is a good illustration of the strong V-finality of Bede. Interestingly (and similarly to Genesis), the V-early order is particularly numerous in clauses of cause, constituting more than 20% of the subtype. (66) is an interesting example because it resembles patterns typical of main declaratives: the verb phrase is placed just after forðon, which is much like a V-2 pattern with S-V inversion. (66) Forðon ne seondon to lufienne þa wiisan because not are to love the things fore stowum (Bede, cl. 1022–1023) for places   ‘For things are not to be loved for sake of places’

Luke: The order distribution in the subtypes of adverbial clauses in Luke is shown in Table 23. Table 23.  Element order of selected subtypes of adverbials in Luke. clauses of

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

time

67 (70.5%)

25 (26.3%)

3 (3.2%)

95

consequence

30 (71.4%)

  7 (16.7%)

  5 (11.9%)

42

cause

32 (65.3%)

14 (28.6%)

3 (6.1%)

49

condition

  5 (31.2%)

10 (62.5%)

1 (6.2%)

16

manner

  7 (70.0%)

  2 (20.0%)

  1 (10.0%)

10

Most of the subtypes are clearly V-final, as shown in (67), a clause of consequence. Causal clauses in Luke are in conformity with the strong V-finality of the text, as in (68), and do not show any tendency towards use of the V-early order, as is the case in the other two OE translations. (67) þæt ic ece lif hæbbe (Luke, cl. 1884) that I eternal life have   ‘That I have eternal life’  (Lk 10:25)

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 189



(68) forþam þe manega deoflu on hyne eodun (Luke, cl. 1398) because many devils in him-ACC went   ‘Because many devils entered into him’  (Lk 8:30)

An exceptional order distribution in Luke is found in clauses of condition, where a clear majority is V-prefinal, like (69). This group of clauses is spread throughout the analysed part of the text and there is no single clause template as in the conditionals from Genesis. (69) And gyf þar beoð sybbe bearn (Luke, cl. 1801) and if there is peace-GEN son   ‘And if the son of peace is there’  (Lk 10:6)

The comparison of the OE texts does not allow for broader generalisations. In Luke, there is no subtype of adverbial clauses in which the V-early order would be particularly frequent, while in Bede and Genesis, clauses of cause and consequence follow this order quite often. The V-final order is dominant in most subtypes of adverbial clauses in Bede and Luke, while in Genesis, only clauses of manner are dominated by this element order pattern. Tatian: Turning to the OHG texts in the corpus, Table 24 presents the distribution of orders among the subtypes of adverbial clauses in Tatian. Table 24.  Element order of selected subtypes of adverbials in Tatian. clauses of

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

time

50 (45.0%)

41 (36.9%)

20 (18.0%)

111

consequence

35 (42.7%)

37 (45.1%)

10 (12.2%)

  82

cause

42 (41.6%)

42 (41.6%)

17 (16.8%)

101

condition

29 (58.0%)

16 (32.0%)

  5 (10.0%)

  50

manner

11 (55.0%)

  8 (40.0%)

1 (5.0%)

  20

In this text, the V-final order is not overwhelmingly strong in subordinates in general. This is visible in the figures for the particular subtypes, the highest percentage for V-final being 58%. However, the distribution within the subtypes is far from uniform. Clauses of cause and consequence have the highest figures for the V-prefinal order, (70) being a typical example of the former type. (Tatian, cl. 320) (70) bithiu uuanta her sinaz folc heilaz tuot fon iro sunton because he his people saved makes from their sins   ‘For he shall save his people from their sins’  (Mt 1:21)

In clauses of time, the distribution of orders is closest to that of all adverbials in Table 6. The V-final order, illustrated by (71), is most common, but it does not

190 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

constitute the majority. Clauses of manner and, especially, clauses of condition are more V-final than the previously mentioned subtypes, as in (72), and the frequency of V-early is highest in clauses of time and cause. (71) inti thô her thara quam (Tatian, cl. 555) and when he there came   ‘And when he came there’  (Mt 2:23) (72) Oba Satanas in imo selbem ziteilit ist (Tatian, cl. 2525) if Satan in himself divided is   ‘If Satan is also divided against himself ’  (Lk 11:18)

Isidor: As has been demonstrated in Table 7, adverbial clauses in Isidor are in general moderately V-final. The split into subtypes, presented in Table 25, shows quite strong divergences from the mean values. Table 25.  Element order of selected subtypes of adverbials in Isidor. clauses of time

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

Total

33 (73.3%)

11 (24.4%)

1 (2.2%)

45

consequence

15 (53.6%)

10 (35.7%)

  3 (10.7%)

28

cause

11 (44.0%)

  5 (20.0%)

  9 (36.0%)

25

condition

13 (86.7%)

1 (6.7%)

1 (6.7%)

15

manner

  6 (66.7%)

  3 (33.3%)

0 (0.0%)

 9

Clauses of time and condition are rather strongly V-final, cf. (73), where the latter type is illustrated. However, there are two problems with the V-final conditionals. First, we observe a very strong similarity to the Latin; 8 clauses have exactly the same order as in the source text. Moreover, among these 8 clauses, 6 convey basically the same meaning, a hypothesis recurring throughout the treatise “if Christ were not God”, cf. (73), though they do not follow a single lexically fixed formula (the words got and druhtin are used interchangeably). Thus, we face an identical problem as with the conditionals in Genesis and cannot regard the figures as entirely reliable. (73) Ibu christ got nist (Isidor, cl. 162) if christ god not-is   ‘If Christ is not God’

Clauses of cause and consequence are less strongly V-final. While examples with the V-final order constitute the largest group, it is the other orders that are truly interesting. The second most common order in clauses of consequence is V-prefinal. In clauses expressing cause, however, the V-early order, illustrated by (74), is

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 191



almost as frequent as V-final. This seems to reflect the special properties of the word huuanda. The clauses it introduces do not often display the characteristic features of subordinates and so the conjunction’s subordinating character is also questionable (Dittmer 1991 in Petrova & Hinterhölzl 2010: 194). (74) huuanda dhar ist in rehteru chilaubin allero uuesan because there is in right faith all-GEN being chimeini (Isidor, cl. 782) same   ‘Because in faith the condition of all is the same’

Physiologus: The data for Physiologus are presented in Table 26. Table 26.  Element order of selected subtypes of adverbials in Physiologus. clauses of

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

Total

time

22 (61.1%)

  9 (25.0%)

  5 (13.9%)

36

consequence

11 (73.3%)

  3 (20.0%)

1 (6.7%)

15

cause

0 (0.0%)

   1 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

 1

condition

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

   2 (100.0%)

 2

  6 (75.0%)

  1 (12.5%)

  1 (12.5%)

 8

manner

Only two subtypes of adverbial clauses are represented by more than 10 instances in the text, these being clauses of time and consequence. Both have a majority of V-final, cf. (75) representing clauses of time. (75) Vnde so siu after diu gehiæn (Phys., cl. 168) and when they later mate   ‘And later when they mate’

The remaining subtypes do not allow for reliable generalisations; the two least numerous subtypes are not attested in even a single V-final clause. One curious fact is that the two conditional clauses in Physiologus are asyndetic V-1 clauses, which are the only such conditionals in the corpus. (76) shows one of them. (76) Ist siu denne uuarhafto magit (Phys., cl. 84) is she then truly virgin   ‘If she is truly a virgin’

In short, there are two generalisations to be made about the OHG data: in the two texts where all the subtypes are well-represented, i.e. Tatian and Isidor, clauses of cause have the lowest proportion of V-final, while clauses of time and condition are more V-final than the other subtypes, but Tatian is in general less V-final than Isidor, so the difference in frequencies between the texts is quite substantial.

192 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

The discussion of the data from the individual OE and OHG texts reveals many text-specific features with few general tendencies. This is illustrated by Figure 1, which is a heat map showing the extent to which particular subtypes of adverbial clauses in all the texts follow the V-final order (other patterns are not taken into consideration). The darker the area in the heat map, the higher the percentage of V-final in a given subtype of adverbial clauses in a given text (two blank areas correspond to the subtypes which are very poorly represented in Physiologus). Genesis Bede Luke Tatian Isidor Physiologus time

manner

codition

consequence

cause

Figure 1.  Tendency for the V-final order in all subtypes of adverbials.

The detailed picture of order distribution in adverbial clauses appears to be rather chaotic. The differences between the subtypes may be considerable, especially in Genesis, Tatian and Isidor, but they are text-specific. Yet, we can note two less pronounced regularities. Clauses of manner in OE appear to be particularly strongly V-final. They rank first among the subtypes in all the OE texts, and, in all three, the frequency of the V-final order is close to 70% or more. This contrasts with OHG; in Tatian and Isidor,14 clauses of manner are surpassed by the other subtypes and only about half of these clauses are V-final. We also note that clauses of cause are weakly V-final. They rank low (though not always last) and have low frequencies of the V-final order. This seems to apply both to OE and OHG. The only text15 that does not fit the pattern well is Luke, with a frequency as high as 56%. One readily available explanation is that clauses of cause are often not linked by subordination to those expressing effect (their respective superordinate clauses in our analysis), and the syntactic relation indeed appears to be a loose one (Dittmer 1991 in Petrova & Hinterhölzl 2010: 194). Thus, the words that are subordinating conjunctions of cause may also function as discourse-linking adverbs in both OE and OHG. 14.  Physiologus patterns with OE in Fig. 1, but this has a weak basis since there are just 8 clauses of manner in the whole text. 15.  We ignore Physiologus which has only one clause of cause.



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 193

On the whole, subtypes of adverbial clauses do not show many clear tendencies across the texts or within the analysed languages, and the behaviour of particular subtypes is to a great extent text-specific. We may recall that various sources on both OE and OHG more or less explicitly rank different types and subtypes of subordinates (especially subtypes of adverbial clauses) according to their strength of V-finality (cf. section 5.1). It seems that the reason why different rankings quoted in the literature contradict one another is that they are simply based on texts which have different order distributions. It is doubtful if any viable whole-language rankings can be created. As has been shown, it is impossible to produce a reliable ranking for either OE or OHG on the basis of our corpus: the differences between the texts are simply too extensive (cf. Figure 1). Nevertheless, some tendencies as to the most and least V-final subtypes of adverbial clauses have been identified. 5.8 Subtypes of nominal clauses In nominal clauses, the division into subtypes is semantic-pragmatic and relates to the semantics of the clausal complement of the superordinate verb (and, by extension, to the semantics of this verb). The three types that can be distinguished correspond directly to the three types of main clauses: declarative, interrogative and imperative. Thus, to a large extent, the function of nominal clauses is to convey the functional character of utterances, cf. Mitchell, who calls the subject of the superordinate clause simply “‘the speaker’ (which may mean the wisher, the questioner, the promiser, the exclaimer, or, for example in reports of Gospel statements, the original writer”; 1985: §1936). The more detailed listing of the types of ‘speakers’ relates to various types of content in nominal clauses. It must also be borne in mind that “[t]here is, of course, no implication that the non-dependent equivalent of the noun clause was necessarily ever spoken or written” (Mitchell 1985: §1936). Thus, a nominal clause may report an actual utterance or it may be the very same structure used more descriptively, not to report the message (indirect speech in the strict sense) but rather to relate it. Thus, we classify the nominal clauses in our data as either dependent statements (corresponding to declaratives), dependent questions (corresponding to interrogatives) or dependent requests (corresponding to imperatives).16 Obviously, by using such labels we do not mean to imply that the illocutionary force of the respective type of main clauses is to be associated with the subordinate clauses analysed here. While the classification used is rather unproblematic in application and very intuitive, nominal clauses as such cannot be reduced to real or possible 16.  The last group is called ‘dependent desires’ by Mitchell (1985: §1937).

194 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

indirect speech. Some of the verbs that introduce nominal clauses are not verbs of saying (or any other type of communication, cf. Fischer et al. 2000: 62), so the related nominal clause is not an indirect statement or question or imperative, cf. (77). Yet, let us stress that the classification outlined above hardly ever turned out problematic. (77) Hyt gelamp eft syððan, þæt Sarra beheold hu Agares sunu wið Isaac how Agar’s son with Isaac it happened then later that Sara saw plegode (Genesis, cl. 1481–1483) played   ‘Later it came to pass that Sara saw how the son of Agar played with Isaac’  (Gen 21:9)

(78) God bebead us ðæt we ne æton, ne we ðæt treow ne God ordered us that we not eat nor we that tree not

(Genesis, cl. 207–208) touch   ‘God commanded us that we should not eat and that we should not touch the tree’  (Gen 3:3)

(77) comprises two nominal clauses, one subordinate to the other. The first one is a þæt-clause classified as a dependent statement. Though the superordinate verb gelamp does not introduce reported speech, the nominal clause involves an assertion as a reported statement. The second nominal clause is introduced by the verb beheold. The action of watching can be argued to bear more similarity to asking a question (both activities imply gathering some kind of information) than to making a statement (providing information). This clause is thus classified together with dependent questions, although it does not involve an act of asking a question.17 Of course, the classifications match the use of typical markers of the two types of clauses, þæt and hu. Finally, (78) shows an example of a dependent request introduced by a verb of communication. It should be borne in mind that two subtypes of nominal clauses distinguished in our analysis, i.e. dependent statements and dependent requests, are both introduced by þæt and in other studies they are often grouped into the single category of þæt-clauses for OE (e.g. Fischer et al. 2000) or thaz/dhaz-clauses for OHG (e.g. Schlachter 2009). The division of the analysed clauses into only three subtypes is, of course, more fortunate for the analysis than the many subtypes of adverbial clauses in the previous section. However, nominal clauses are in general less numerous in all the

17.  An alternative would be to create separate categories for such clauses, which is undesirable as it would scatter the data into many smaller groups.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 195



texts (cf. Tables 3-8), which is why some categories of clauses distinguished in the analysis appear with low frequencies in the corpus. Genesis: The results for Genesis are presented in Table 27. Table 27.  Element order of subtypes of nominal clauses in Genesis. Clause subtype

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

dependent statements

28 (45.9%)

23 (37.7%)

10 (16.4%)

61

dependent questions

10 (55.6%)

  7 (38.9%)

1 (5.6%)

18

dependent requests

15 (46.9%)

13 (40.6%)

  4 (12.5%)

32

The most common orders are again V-final and V-prefinal, and their percentages are rather similar. This reflects the basic fact (which we noted above, cf. Table 3) that nominal clauses (and subordinates in general) in Genesis are not strongly V-final. In one subtype only, dependent questions, illustrated in (79), V-final clauses constitute a majority. Dependent requests in Genesis have the highest proportion of V-prefinal clauses, as in (80), but the difference in order distribution between this group and dependent statements is negligible, which shows that nominal þæt-clauses behave consistently in this text. (79) hwæt his suna him dydon (Genesis, cl. 673) what his sons him did   ‘What his sons had done to him’  (Gen 9:24) (80) þæt Ismahel lybbe ætforan ðe (Genesis, cl. 1091) that Ismael live before you-SG   ‘That Ismael may live before you’  (Gen 17:18)

Bede: Table 28 provides the figures for nominal clauses in Bede. Table 28.  Element order of subtypes of nominal clauses in Bede. Clause subtype

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

dependent statements

77 (50.7%)

43 (28.3%)

32 (21.1%)

152

dependent questions

27 (77.1%)

  5 (14.3%)

3 (8.6%)

  35

dependent requests

49 (67.1%)

12 (16.4%)

12 (16.4%)

  73

One general characteristic is the predominance of the V-final order. The highest proportion is 75% for dependent questions, as in (81), while the lowest is (only) 50% for dependent statements. The order distribution in the latter category is balanced by Bede’s standards: V-prefinal clauses and V-early clauses have considerable shares, both exceeding 20%. They are illustrated by (82) and (83) respectively.

196 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Dependent requests are an intermediate category, the frequency of each order is between the result for dependent questions and dependent statements. (81) of hwelcon londe oðþe of hwylcre þeode hy brohte wæron (Bede, cl. 1769) of what land or of what people they brought were   ‘From what land or people they were brought’ (82) þæt se cyning com to þam ealonde (Bede, cl. 800) that the king came to the island   ‘That the king came to the island’ (83) þæt he hine sylfne on geweald sealde swylcere frecednysse that he himself into power gave great peril-GEN for þam cuman (Bede, cl. 213) for the stranger   ‘That he exposed himself to great danger for the stranger’

Luke: As shown in Table 29, nominal clauses in Luke are dominated by the V-final order, which in all the subtypes can be found in the majority of clauses, as in (84), representing dependent statements. Table 29.  Element order of subtypes of nominal clauses in Luke. Clause subtype

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

dependent statements

42 (62.7%)

dependent questions

19 (67.9%)

19 (28.4%)

6 (9.0%)

67

  6 (21.4%)

  3 (10.7%)

28

dependent requests

23 (65.7%)

10 (28.6%)

2 (5.7%)

35

Conversely, the V-early order is evidently marginal, but this is a general feature of the text. V-prefinal clauses, like (85), which is a dependent request, by contrast, constitute a noticeable minority in all the subtypes. It is evident that the differences of distribution among the subtypes are small. (84) þæt we her beon (Luke, cl. 1661) that we here be   ‘That we are here’  (Lk 9:33) (Luke, cl. 1385) (85) þæt ðu ne ðreage me that you-SG not torment me   ‘That you do not torment me’  (Lk 8:28)

In sum, in all the OE translations, the most V-final subtype of nominal clauses are dependent questions. Dependent statements and requests demonstrate similar proportions of element order patterns in Genesis and Luke (in the latter text

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 197



differences among all the subtypes are small), while in Bede, dependent requests are clearly more V-final than dependent statements. We shall now turn to the OHG part of our data. Tatian: The data in Table 30 reveal a split between the subtypes of nominal clauses in Tatian. Table 30.  Element order of subtypes of nominal clauses in Tatian. Clause subtype

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

dependent statements

43 (47.8%)

30 (33.3%)

17 (18.9%)

90

dependent questions

24 (70.6%)

  9 (26.5%)

1 (2.9%)

34

dependent requests

11 (64.7%)

  6 (35.3%)

0 (0.0%)

17

Whereas only ca. 48% of dependent statements exhibit the V-final order, dependent questions and requests are much more V-final (around 70%), as in (86), which is a dependent question. Such figures are a record high for Tatian, a text generally characterised by rather weak V-finality. (86) inti bi uuelihha sahha siu inan biruorta (Tatian, cl. 2431) and for what cause she him touched   ‘And for what cause she had touched him’  (Lk 8:47)

Having a relatively low percentage of the V-final order, dependent statements in Tatian have in turn a larger share of alternative orders. Both V-prefinal and V-early orders are well represented in this group, as exemplified by (87) and (88) respectively. (87) Thaz ih íu quád in finstarnessin (Tatian, cl. 1799) that I you-PL.DAT said in darkness   ‘That which I tell you in the dark’  (Mt 10:27) (88) tház hiutu gifullit ist thiz giscrib in íuuaren orun (Tatian, cl. 951) that today fulfilled is the scripture in your ears   ‘That today is fulfilled this scripture in your ears’  (Lk 4:21)

Isidor: As far as the subtypes of nominal clauses in Isidor are concerned, for the first time in this section, our analysis stumbles on the scarcity of data.

198 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 31.  Element order of subtypes of nominal clauses in Isidor. Clause subtype

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

dependent statements

29 (59.2%)

10 (20.4%)

10 (20.4%)

49

dependent questions

12 (57.1%)

  7 (33.3%)

2 (9.5%)

21

dependent requests

0 (0.0%)

   1 (100.0%)

   (0.0%)

 1

With just one dependent request, cited below as (89), no generalisations can be made. (89) dhazs dhu firstandes heilac chiruni (Isidor, cl. 142) that you-SG understand holy secret   ‘That you understand the holy secret’

Dependent statements and questions are predominantly V-final, as in (90), representing the former type. It should also be noted that among the 29 V-final dependent statements, as many as 11 have a complex verb phrase in the final position, with a finite verb followed by a non-finite form, as in (91); there is no other category of clauses in any other text in our corpus in which this pattern enjoys such a high frequency of occurrence. (90) dhazs ih dhinan uuillun duoe (Isidor, cl. 323) that I your will do   ‘That I do according to your will’ (91) daz er fona fater ist gaboran (Isidor, cl. 6) that he from father is born   ‘That he is born from God – his father’

Rather unsurprisingly, the main alternative to V-final is V-prefinal, as in (92), though V-early is also attested, as in (93), which shows a V-early dependent question. (92) huueo ir fona dauides samin uuardh chiboran how he from David’s seed was born after fleisches mezsse (Isidor, cl. 802) after body’s measure   ‘How he was born in flesh from the seed of David’

(93) huueo got uuard man chiuuordan christ gotes sunu (Isidor, cl. 419) how god was man become christ god’s son   ‘How God became man – Christ, God’s son’

Physiologus: In Physiologus, there are only eight nominal clauses altogether. Almost all of them are dependent statements; there is just one dependent question



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 199

and no dependent requests at all. The dependent statements are split between V-final (three clauses) and V-prefinal (four clauses). The single dependent question is V-final. The scarcity of data precludes any meaningful comparisons here. In short, it is difficult to provide a generalisation about the OHG material because the data from Physiologus are limited, while Tatian and Isidor follow different tendencies: in the former text, dependent questions are more V-final than the other subtypes, while in Isidor, no such difference may be observed. The analysis conducted in this section allows us to establish a certain ranking of order distribution in the nominal clauses from our corpus. Dependent questions are most V-final, followed by dependent requests, while dependent statements are the least V-final of the three subtypes. This generalisation holds for Genesis, Bede, Luke and Tatian (though it should be borne in mind that in Luke, the differences between all the subtypes of nominal clauses are very small, and in Genesis, dependent statements and requests are very similar in their order distribution). The only exception is Isidor, where dependent statements are slightly more V-final than dependent questions, but the difference is only ca. 2% and we have to remember that the high figure for V-final order in dependent statements is due to numerous clauses with V(fin)-V(nfin) ordering, like (91), which are not the most typical examples of the V-final order (cf. the discussion of (10) above). When we look at the frequencies, Bede and Tatian behave similarly. In these two texts, dependent questions and requests are clearly V-final, whereas dependent statements are closer to 50% or even below. In contrast, Genesis is weakly V-final; such clauses constitute a slight majority only in dependent questions. On the other hand, in Luke, all the subtypes of nominal clauses follow the V-final order in around 65% of cases; the differences between them are exceptionally small. Finally, Isidor turns out to be moderately V-final: both dependent statements and dependent questions follow this order in ca. 58% of the clauses. In sum, we can observe some general patterns but they describe only Bede and Tatian well; Luke generally fits in but with the smallest differences between the subtypes. Genesis and Isidor diverge from the pattern common to the three ‘core’ texts, each in its own way, whereas Physiologus provides too little data to be included in the comparison. It is noteworthy that the common patterns join texts from OE and OHG and the ‘exceptions’ also represent both languages. Thus, no consistent language-specific features are observed in nominal clauses. One regularity to be noted is that dependent questions are generally most V-final of the three subtypes, with some qualifications (relating mainly to Isidor).

200 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

5.9 Subtypes of relative clauses In the previous two sections, we relied on a single way of subdividing the analysed clause type. In the case of relative clauses, there is more than one criterion of subdivision that should be taken into account. Thus, below we present two comparisons on the basis of the same data. The first one is purely syntactic: we take into account the presence or absence of a head which the relative clause modifies. The second criterion is morphosyntactic and we compare various strategies of relativisation, i.e. different types of words introducing relative clauses (relativisers). 5.9.1 Free relatives and true relatives The most typical relative clauses function as attributes to a noun in the superordinate clause.18 Yet, the same or similar clausal structures are also used without heads. The distinction between true19 (headed or attributive) relatives and free (headless or non-attributive) relatives is thus very simple. One complication is that when the superordinate clause has a plain demonstrative or personal pronoun as the realisation of the common argument of the two clauses, we do not consider the pronoun to be a fully-fledged head, but a placeholder. Thus, relative clauses like the one in (94) are treated as free relatives. (94) gebe themo thie ni habe (Tatian, cl. 691–692) give-SBJ this-DAT who not has   ‘Give to the one who does not have’  (Lk 3:11)

Below, we compare order distribution in these two subtypes of clauses. Genesis: The data for Genesis are given in in Table 32.

18.  Hence the label ‘attributive clause’. Another commonly used one (e.g. by Mitchell 1985) is ‘adjective clauses’. 19.  Our use of labels like ‘typical’ or ‘true’ for headed relatives clauses is in line with general practice in linguistics. For example, in their wide-scale study of relativisation across languages, Comrie & Kuteva (2013c) do not take free relatives into account. Another reason why we feel entitled to treat headed relatives as the more basic type in our study is that they are consistently more numerous in our corpus, cf. Tables 32-37. The share of free relatives is highest in Luke and Tatian, but it is less than a third of all relatives. The frequent use of free relatives is very probably a characteristic feature of the Gospel text and its rhetoric devices.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 201



Table 32.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Genesis. V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

true relatives

Clause subtype

79 (56.0%)

53 (37.6%)

9 (6.4%)

141

free relatives

  6 (85.7%)

  1 (14.3%)

0 (0.0%)

   7

One striking fact is the very low number of free relatives in Genesis; they make up only ca. 5% of the total number of relative clauses. Another notable observation is their strong V-finality, as represented by (95); only one clause in this group is not V-final. Such a high percentage of the V-final order is unprecedented in Genesis, a text whose general feature is weak V-finality in subordinates. Still, we have to keep in mind the very limited number of clauses in the category, which makes any conclusions less certain. As far as true relatives are concerned, the V-final order, exemplified by (96), constitutes a slight majority. V-prefinal true relative clauses form a sizable minority, but by the standards of this particular text (cf. Table 1 and 2), they are not very numerous. (95) swa hwa swa hyt geaxað he hlyhð mid me (Genesis, cl. 1471–1472) whoever it hears he laughs with me   ‘Whosoever shall hear of it will laugh with me’  (Gen 21:6) (96) & God ða gemunde Noes fare & ðæra nytena ðe him mid and God then remembered Noe’s family and the animals which him with wæron (Genesis, cl. 548–549) were   ‘And God remembered Noe’s family and the animals which were with him’  (Gen 8:1)

Bede: The data for Bede, presented in Table 33, show that relative clauses of both subtypes are predominantly V-final. Table 33.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Bede. Clause subtype

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

true relatives

176 (70.7%)

44 (17.7%)

29 (11.6%)

249

free relatives

  23 (82.1%)

  4 (14.3%)

1 (3.6%)

  28

Representative examples are provided below: (97) shows two free relative clauses and (98) includes a true relative clause. We can also note that free relatives are more V-final than true relatives. With a larger absolute number of free relatives in Bede than in Genesis, we have a sound basis for treating this observation as a valid linguistic generalisation.

202 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(97) in þæm neowan þeodscipe, nales swa swiðe þætte utan doen bið, swa þætte in the new covenant not so much that outside done is as that innan þoht bið, bihygdelice is behealden (Bede, cl. 1374, 1376–1377) inside thought is carefully is regarded   ‘In the new covenant, not so much the external act as the internal thought is carefully regarded’



(Bede, cl. 1221–1222) (98) Oðþe se wer, se ðe his wiife gemenged bið or the man who his wife known is   ‘Or the man, who makes himself known to his wife’

Luke: Table 34 shows the figures for free and true relatives in Luke. Table 34.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Luke. Clause subtype

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

true relatives

97 (67.4%)

38 (26.4%)

9 (6.3%)

144

free relatives

53 (76.8%)

11 (15.9%)

5 (7.2%)

  69

The V-final order is by far the most common order in both free relatives like (99) and true relatives like (100). If we compare the two groups, free relatives are more V-final than true relatives. (99) Me gehyrð se ðe eow gehyrð (Luke, cl. 1837–1838) me hears who you-PL hears   ‘He that hears you hears me’  (Lk 10:16) (100) & læddon hine ofer ðæs muntes cnæpp ofer þone hyra buruh and led him-ACC over the hill’s brow over which their city getimbrud wæs (Luke, cl. 570) built was   ‘And they brought him to the brow of the hill whereon their city was built’  (Lk 4:29)

On the whole, all the OE texts show the same tendency: free relatives are more V-final than true relatives. Relative clauses show a relatively high proportion of V-final in Bede and Luke, while in Genesis, the weak tendency for V-finality is visible once again. Tatian: We now turn to the OHG data. As we know from Table 6, relatives in Tatian are quite balanced as far as the two main orders are concerned. This is confirmed by Table 35, where the percentages of the V-final order are relatively low.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 203



Table 35.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Tatian. V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

true relatives

Clause subtype

85 (40.1%)

107 (50.5%)

20 (9.4%)

212

free relatives

70 (54.3%)

  47 (36.4%)

12 (9.3%)

129

However, if we compare the two subtypes, free relatives are more V-final than true relatives in Tatian. V-final clauses, like (101), form a slight majority in free relatives, but in true relatives, their rate is only about 40%. The most common order in this category of clauses is V-prefinal, as in (102). (101) inti thie íuuuih vozirnit, thie vozirnit mih (Tatian, cl. 2710–2711) and who you-PL despises this despises me   ‘And he that despises you despises me’  (Lk 10:16) (102) Maria gicós thaz bezista teil, thaz ni uuirdit arfirrit Mary chose the best part which not becomes taken fon iru (Tatian, cl. 2586–2587) from her   ‘Mary chose the best part, which shall not be taken away from her’  (Lk 10:42)

Isidor: Table 36 shows the strong V-finality of relative clauses in Isidor. Table 36.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Isidor. Clause subtype

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

true relatives

40 (71.4%)

12 (21.4%)

4 (7.1%)

56

free relatives

11 (84.6%)

  2 (15.4%)

0 (0.0%)

13

The V-final order is by far the most common in both free relatives, as in (103), and in true relatives, as in (104). Free relatives are not numerous, but they are more V-final than true relatives. (103) endi dher selbo ist dhes dheodun bidant (Isidor, cl. 652–653) and the same is who-GEN people await   ‘And he is the same person for whom the people are waiting’ (104) Ibu christus auur got ni uuari, dhemu in psalmom chiquhedan if christ however god not was who-DAT in psalms said uuard (Isidor, cl. 109–110) was   ‘If Christ was not God, to whom it is said in psalms…’

204 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Physiologus: In the last text, Physiologus, the V-final order is rather infrequent among relative clauses. Table 37.  Order distribution in free and true relative clauses in Physiologus. Clause subtype

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

true relatives

14 (45.2%)

16 (51.6%)

1 (3.2%)

31

free relatives

  3 (50.0%)

  3 (50.0%)

0 (0.0%)

 6

In free relatives, the numbers of V-final and V-prefinal clauses are equal, but there are only three clauses in each group. The distribution in true relatives is also very balanced between the two orders. As a result, the V-prefinal order, shown in (105), accounts for half of true relatives in this text. Although the amount of data from Physiologus is small, it fits in with the general patterns we have observed in the other texts. (105) so uuir uuellen drinkan daz geistliche uuazzer, daz uns giscenket uuirt when we will drink the spiritual water which us given is fone demo munde unserro euuarton (Phys., cl. 257–258) from the mouth our priests-GEN   ‘When we want to drink the spiritual water which is given to us from the mouths of our priests’

In sum, we can observe one clear regularity. In all the texts, free relatives have a higher rate of the V-final order than true relatives, though the difference is rather small in most texts. Of course, the low numbers of free relatives in Genesis and Physiologus are a problem, but the texts match the general pattern. Thus, this seems to be a common feature of OE and OHG. On the other hand, the analysed texts differ in the actual frequencies of the orders. In Bede, Luke and Isidor, relative clauses are, in general, clearly V-final. In Genesis, V-finality is rather weak in true relatives. Tatian and Physiologus are even less V-final, with V-prefinal clauses surpassing V-final ones in true relatives. On the whole, we cannot make any clear generalisations about OE or OHG alone. In quantitative terms, OE is somewhat more uniform than OHG in our data. One explanation that might be offered for the observed difference between free relatives and true relatives is that free relatives are indeed freer: they are not attached to the head noun, and they quite often come before the superordinate clause; see Mitchell (1985: §2201) and some of the examples above: (95) and (101). Free relatives are thus in several ways more versatile than true relatives. It may be the case that sticking to the V-final order (as a signal of subordination) is a way to ensure that these clauses are interpreted correctly. We can only suggest such a hypothesis for the functional difference, but do not aim to test it here.



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 205

5.9.2 Relativisation strategies The actual grammatical means that serve the purpose of building the relativising construction vary considerably across languages. For up-to-date typological analyses, please refer to Comrie & Kuteva (2013a, 2013b, 2013c) and Dixon (2010 II: 313–369). It is also quite common for a language to use several different strategies to build relative clauses, as is the case with both OE and OHG. It is therefore natural to ask whether the choice of relativisation strategy is related to other grammatical features like element order within the relative clause. In the case of our analysis, the literature suggests that relative clauses formed by means of different structures do vary in element order, at least in OE (Fischer et al. 2000). Both OE and OHG have three major strategies of relativisation. In OE, both true and free relative clauses are introduced either by se or by þe or by the combination of the two, i.e. se þe (Mitchell 1985: §2103–2104). The relative pronoun se inflects for gender, number and case. Hence, the se-type relatives feature a number of forms that are used according to the properties of the common argument and its function in the relative clause. By contrast, þe is an uninflected invariant relative particle.20 When the two are combined, se inflects and þe does not. We must add that we do not treat every sequence of a se pronoun form and the particle þe as an instance of the se þe subtype. Consider (106), where the dative pronoun þam fits the function of the shared argument in the superordinate clause, but not in the relative clause. The relativised position is the subject and so the appropriate case is nominative. In such a situation, we treat the pronoun as a demonstrative within the superordinate clause and not a relativiser (cf. the detailed discussion in Mitchell 1985: §2153–2160).21 (106) Onlihtan þam þe on ðystrum & on deaþes sceade sittað enlighten these that in darkness and in death’s shadow sit   (Luke, cl. 217–218) ‘To enlighten them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death’ (Lk 1:79) 20.  As Traugott (1992: 229) says, the se type and þe type are deemed to differ structurally. Relative pronouns are constituents of the relative clause, whereas þe only marks the clause as a whole as relative and the clause itself typically contains a gap in the position of the shared argument. This matches the approach of Comrie & Kuteva (2013b) as the examples in their paper show. Thus, the two contrasting subtypes of relative clauses in OE (and in OHG) seem distinct also from a broader typological perspective. 21.  An alternative is to treat this as an instance of case attraction (the relative pronoun matches the function of the common argument in the superordinate clause but not in the relative clause) in the se þe type, but this seems to be a rather forced analysis since the particle þe is sufficient as a marker of relativisation. Moreover, there are no examples whatsoever of undisputed case attraction in the se type in our OE data.

206 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

There are also two minor kinds of relative markers in our OE data. One of them makes use of indefinite generalising pronouns like swa hwa swa and, for semantic reasons, it is generally restricted to free relatives, as e.g. in (95). The other utilises spatial pronouns like þær, which mark the function of the shared argument in the relative clause, much as se pronoun forms do. Still, they are not a part of the paradigm of se forms. The relativisation strategies of OHG are similar to those of OE. Thus, we can distinguish three subtypes that correspond to the major subtypes in OE: the relative pronoun ther (with a number of inflected forms), several22 uninflected particles: the, thar and thie,23 as well as combinations of the two like ther the, thie thar, ther thie or der dir. The use of a number of relative particles (all of which are attested in Tatian) instead of just one is the main systemic difference between the two languages. In order for a series containing a form of ther and a particle to be classified as of the pronoun-and-particle type, the pronoun must have the case matching the function that the shared argument fulfils in the relative clause. This is the criterion we use for OE, cf. the discussion of (106), which is not of the pronoun and particle type in our classification. A parallel OHG example is (94) above. As far as case attraction (cf. fn. 21) is concerned, we found individual undisputed examples of it in Tatian and Isidor. Because of the marginal character of the phenomenon in our data, we do not separate these few clauses, and count them together with the pronoun type. The two minor types we mentioned in the discussion of OE are semantically based and they are both attested in the OHG data. Pronouns like so uuer so introduce generalising relative clauses and those like thar24 introduce relatives in which a locative element is relativised. Apart from this, in both languages we separate those relative clauses that are conjoined with a preceding one and do not contain any overt relativiser of their own, like the last clause in (107) or (108). The majority of these clauses are very short. Of course, such clauses can all be traced back to relativisers earlier in the

22.  On the whole, the particles in our OHG data are used mostly in combination with the pronouns. Only thie in Tatian is used on its own. 23.  The particle thie (cf. Janko 2001) is identical in form with the feminine/plural nominative form of the relative pronoun. Its occurrences were classified according to the gender of the head. If it was masculine or neuter singular, the word was treated as the relative particle. 24.  The relativising form thar could theoretically be ambiguous (invariant relative particle or spatial relative form), but the semantics of the few clauses with plain thar always refers to space, so the form was always classified as a spatial relativiser. The particle thar is only found in the pronoun and particle type, as in (119) below.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 207



text and grouped accordingly, but we prefer to keep them apart because the scope of the influence of the relativiser on element order is unclear. (107) thaz ist minnista allero vvurzo inti ist boum (Tatian, cl. 2968–2969) which is least all seeds-GEN and is tree   ‘Which is the least of all seeds and is a tree’  (Mt 13:32) (108) se be Diocletiane lyfgendum Gallia rice & Ispania heold & who with Diocletianus living-DAT Gaul’s kingdom and Spain held and rehte (Bede, cl. 395–397) swayed   ‘Who held and swayed the empire of Gaul and Spain in the lifetime of Diocletianus’

To sum up, the tables in this section present relative clauses subdivided into those introduced by a relative pronoun (pronoun type), a combination of a pronoun and a relative particle (pronoun & particle type) and a relative particle on its own (particle type). The category ‘other’ provides the data for the minor types of relatives in a summary fashion. We add up separate types of relatives here because the numbers are very low and do not allow for a meaningful interpretation of the data on the minor types in any text. The last category (no overt relativiser) comprises conjoined relatives, as in (107) and (108) above. Genesis: Table 38 provides data for Genesis. Table 38.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Genesis. Strategy

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

pronoun type

  4 (17.4%)

16 (69.6%)

  3 (13.0%)

23

pronoun & particle type

11 (61.1%)

  4 (22.2%)

  3 (16.7%)

18

particle type

66 (66.7%)

31 (31.3%)

2 (2.0%)

99

other

  3 (42.9%)

  3 (42.9%)

  1 (14.3%)

 7

   1 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

 1

no overt relativiser

As can be seen, there is a very strong division between the clauses using the pronoun strategy and the other two major subtypes. Among the pronoun se-type, the great majority of clauses are V-prefinal like (109). By contrast, in the particle type as well as the pronoun-and-particle type, the V-final order prevails. (110) and (111) are typical examples of the two subtypes. (109) ðone he nemde Seth (Genesis, cl. 381) whom-ACC he named Seth   ‘Whom he named Seth’  (Gen 4:25)

208 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(110) þe him on hys modor deaðe gelamp (Genesis, cl. 1719) which him on his mother’s death happened   ‘Which was occasioned by his mother’s death’  (Gen 24:67) (111) of ðære ðe he genumen wæs (Genesis, cl. 299) of which he taken was   ‘From which he was taken’  (Gen 3:23)

Bede: Subordinate clauses in Bede are generally V-final, and this applies to most of the categories in Table 39. Table 39.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Bede. Strategy

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

pronoun type

43 (48.7%)

25 (28.4%)

20 (22.7%)

88

pronoun & particle type

65 (78.3%)

12 (14.4%)

6 (7.2%)

83

particle type

61 (83.6%)

  9 (12.3%)

3 (4.1%)

73

   8 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

 8

22 (88.0%)

2 (8.0%)

1 (4.0%)

25

other no overt relativiser

Among relatives formed with a pronoun, the V-final order, exemplified by (112), does account for the largest share of clauses, but its frequency is slightly below 50%. The pronoun-and-particle type, represented by (113), as well as the particle type, shown in (114), are both very strongly V-final. (112) fram þam hit naman onfeng (Bede, cl. 42) from which it name received   ‘Which received its name from them’ (113) ac ða ðe to geleafan & to fulwihte cerdon (Bede, cl.917) but who to faith and to baptism turned   ‘But those who were converted to faith and baptism’ (114) þe ðær regollico gedemed wæron (Bede, cl.2095) which there correct judged were   ‘What was there judged to be correct’

Luke: The data for Luke, presented in Table  40, show that the pronoun type is not strongly V-final; it is the V-prefinal order that is most frequent, cf. (115) for a relevant example.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 209



Table 40.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Luke. V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

Total

pronoun type

Strategy

21 (42.0%)

23 (46.0%)

  6 (12.0%)

50

pronoun & particle type

30 (75.0%)

  7 (17.5%)

3 (7.5%)

40

particle type

79 (82.3%)

15 (15.6%)

2 (2.1%)

96

other

10 (83.3%)

0 (0.0%)

  2 (16.7%)

12

no overt relativiser

10 (66.7%)

  4 (26.7%)

1 (6.7%)

15

The pronoun-and-particle subtype, as in (116), is decidedly V-final, and relatives built only with the particle þe are V-final in more than 80% of clauses, cf. for instance (117). (115) se dealf deopne (Luke, cl. 1015) who digged deep   ‘Who digged deep’  (Lk 6:48) (116) & þa ðe mid him wæron (Luke, cl. 826) and who with him were   ‘And they that were with him’  (Lk 6:3) (Luke, cl. 1008) (117) þe to me cymþ who to me comes   ‘Who comes to me’  (Lk 6:47)

In short, the OE translations show a clear and consistent tendency: relative clauses introduced by the plain demonstrative pronoun are less V-final than the two types containing the relative particle (regardless of the presence of the pronoun next to the particle). Tatian: Table 41 presents the data for Tatian, our first OHG text. Table 41.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Tatian. Strategy

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

pronoun type

75 (56.8%)

45 (34.1%)

12 (9.1%)

132

pronoun & particle type

37 (33.9%)

59 (54.1%)

  13 (11.9%)

109

particle type

23 (39.7%)

34 (58.6%)

  1 (1.7%)

  58

other

  9 (60.0%)

  3 (20.0%)

   3 (20.0%)

  15

no overt relativiser

11 (40.7%)

13 (48.1%)

   3 (11.1%)

  27

We immediately notice certain special features of order distribution. The pronoun type is dominated by the V-final order, although not very strongly; (118) is a typical example. The pronoun-and-particle subtype, on the other hand, has almost

210 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

exactly reversed proportions of element orders, a slight majority being V-prefinal, as in (119) and (120). This subtype also shows internal variation insofar as the three OHG particles (see above) appear in it in combination with various forms of ther. (118) thiu in íu gitanu sint (Tatian, cl. 2681) which in you-PL done are   ‘Which are done in you’  (Mt 11:21) (119) thaz thar saz in finstarnessin (Tatian, cl. 1113) who sat in darkness   ‘That sat in darkness’  (Mt 4:16) (120) Ther the quidit sinemo bruoder (Tatian, cl. 1257) who tells his brother-DAT   ‘Whosoever tells his brother’  (Mt 5:22)

The last subtype makes use of the relative particle only. No figures for individual particles are given in Table 41 because, in our data, only the particle thie is found in this type. Nearly all occurrences of the particle thar and the belong to the pronoun-and-particle type like (119) and (120). There is just a single exception, cited as (121) below and classified as ‘other’, with thar used without a supporting relative pronoun, but with a personal pronoun. As for the order distribution, the thie-type (as we might call it by analogy to the OE labels) seems similar to the pronoun-andparticle type, having a majority of V-prefinal clauses, like (122). (121) thu thar bist in himile (Tatian, cl. 1446) you-SG who are in heaven   ‘You who are in heaven’  (Mt 6:9) (Tatian, cl. 1817) (122) thie mih bigihit fora mannun who me confesses before men   ‘That shall confess me before men’  (Mt 10:32)

However, the proportions of orders in the particle type are skewed by clauses such as in (123), which all come from a passage showing the genealogy of saint Joseph, a part of which (from Abraham back to Adam and God) consists solely of clauses of exactly the same structure and order, with only the names changing. Out of the 34 V-prefinal clauses of the particle subtype, as many as 20 come from this passage. Thus, the inclusion of the passage with its formulaic clause structure inflates the figure for the V-prefinal order and, as a result, lowers the proportion of the V-final order. Interestingly, however, among the V-final clauses of the thie-type, we also observe a recurring clause structure, presented with its head noun in (124). Six times in our sample, when the ‘father in heaven’ is mentioned, such a clause appears. If we were to remove both kinds of clauses from our count, the most common order

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 211



would still be V-prefinal, with nearly 54% of the clauses of the subtype in question. Therefore, the two recurrent patterns cancel each other’s effects on the statistics. (123) Noe, thie uuas Lamech, thie uuas Matusalę (Tatian, cl. 289–291) Noe who was Lamech’s who was Mathusale’s   ‘Noe, who was of Lamech, who was of Mathusale’  (Lk 3:36–37) (124) … iuuaran fater thie in himilon ist (Tatian, cl. 1227) your father who in heaven is   ‘Your Father who is in heaven’  (Mt 5:16)

Isidor: Isidor, the data for which are shown in Table 42, does not show the same variation of strategies as in the previous four tables. Table 42.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Isidor. Strategy

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

pronoun type

45 (73.8%)

13 (21.3%)

3 (4.9%)

61

other

  6 (85.7%)

0 (0.0%)

  1 (14.3%)

 7

0 (0.0%)

   1 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

 1

no overt relativiser

The pronoun type dominates totally, and the clauses of this type are mostly V-final, as in (125). (125) dhen dhes forasagin uuort bifora chundida (Isidor, cl. 523) who-ACC the prophet’s words before announced   ‘Who was announced before in the words of the prophet’

While there are rather few relative clauses in Isidor as a whole, almost all of them fall into one subtype. The clauses brought together under ‘other’ in Table 42 include the minor types (generalising pronouns and spatial pronouns) and two clauses that are difficult to interpret and classify because the relevant part of the manuscript is damaged and not fully legible. Physiologus: As presented in Table 43, two major relativisation strategies are attested in Physiologus. Table 43.  Element order in connection with relativisation strategies in Physiologus. Strategy

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

total

pronoun type

4 (30.8%)

  9 (69.2%)

0 (0.0%)

13

pronoun & particle type

6 (46.1%)

  7 (53.8%)

0 (0.0%)

13

other no overt relativiser

  3 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

 3

4 (50.0%)

  3 (37.5%)

  1 (12.5%)

 8

212 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

The relative particles are used only in combination with the relative pronoun. Both groups are small in terms of the number of examples, but some tendencies are visible. Both subtypes are mostly V-prefinal, cf. the examples for the pronoun subtype in (126), and for the pronoun-and-particle subtype in (127). V-finality seems weaker in the pronoun subtype, and, at the same time, relative clauses in Physiologus simply do not provide very strong support for V-finality in general. (126) der an sih nam den menischen lihhamin (Phys., cl. 109) who on himself took the human body   ‘Who took a human body’ (127) der dir eine uuile schinet annen rehden uuerchan (Phys., cl. 223) who one while seems on right deeds   ‘Who at times seems to be righteous’

One possible explanation could be that many (18 out of 37) of the relative clauses in Physiologus contain heavy phrases which are usually placed clause-finally in this text. This is the case in both examples above, which are representative. Thus, the weak V-finality could be a side effect of the role of weight, which, as shown in Table 18, is quite robust in this text. All in all, it is impossible to present any generalisations as to the influence of relativisation strategies on the element order of relative clauses in the OHG texts because some categories are not represented in all the texts, and the tendencies are clearly text-specific. To sum up, in this section, we observe similarities linking all the OE texts: the se-type relative clauses are less V-final than the þe-type relatives; the subtype using joint marking by both pronoun and particle behaves like the particle subtype. Of course, it is not the case that all the OE texts have the same order distribution, but the difference between the se-type and the particle-type is visible in all of them. In OHG, the situation is less clear, and there is little uniformity. All three major relativisation strategies are attested only in Tatian, which turns out to be similar to the OE texts in this respect. However, Tatian does not parallel the OE texts with regard to order distribution: in fact, Tatian shows exactly the opposite tendency: it is the relatives formed with pronouns only that are more V-final. Isidor, while being restricted to only one of the major strategies, matches Tatian in terms of order frequency. Physiologus does not, but we could explain this by the presence of heavy phrases in the relative clauses in the text. On the whole, the OHG data do not demonstrate the discrepancy of element order patterns between clauses employing different relativisation strategies that is so evident in OE. Because OHG relative pronouns favour the V-final order (with the exception of Physiologus



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 213

though), we might claim that the subordinating function of relative pronouns is probably more developed in OHG than in OE. 5.10 Relation to Latin This section is devoted to the last factor to be considered in our analysis, i.e. the influence of the Latin source texts. The analysed subordinate clauses in OE and OHG were compared to the corresponding source clauses. In the tables throughout the section, as in the other chapters, we operate with two large groupings of clauses: those following Latin and those modifying Latin. The major criterion used for this distinction is the position of the finite verb in the corresponding clauses of the source and the target text (as explained in section 2.7). Thus, clauses following Latin have no change in the position of the finite verb, but they may have other alterations, which we consider of lesser importance from the point of view of our analysis. This means that among clauses following Latin, we distinguish close phrase-by-phrase copies (the category ‘copied order’) as well as clauses with minor modifications. In particular, the minor modifications include the addition of an overt subject in the Germanic versions versus null subjects in Latin (the category ‘added S’). This kind of change is rather to be expected in a translation from a pro-drop language into a non-pro-drop language, as is the case with the texts we analyse. Furthermore, if a Latin clause has a non-finite form, which is turned into a finite one in OE/OHG with its position unchanged, we also count this as a clause following Latin. Lastly, when a clause alters the order of other constituents or adds or deletes constituents, but retains the position of the finite verb (counting from the end of the clause), we still treat this as following Latin, although we regard such clauses as borderline cases. This means that the sub-category ‘minor change’ includes clauses with non-finite verbs changed into finite, as well as changes in the position of constituents other that the verb. Clauses modifying Latin are also divided into subcategories. The most obvious form of modification is the reshuffling of the constituents of the clause including the finite verb (‘changed V position’). Overt expression of a verb absent in the source text is a similar change (‘added V’). There are also very short Latin clauses, which are elaborated by the translators by adding new elements to them (‘elaboration’). Apart from these, we encounter clauses that are, to a considerable extent, paraphrases of or additions to the Latin text, which are grouped as ‘free translation’. Genesis: Tables 44 and 45 provide data on Genesis.

214 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 44.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Genesis. Order

following

modifying

total

V-final

72 (32.3%)

151 (67.7%)

223

V-prefinal

82 (40.0%)

123 (60.0%)

205

V-early

15 (27.8%)

  39 (72.2%)

  54

Table 45.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Genesis. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V Added Elaboration Free transposition V lation

V-final

10 (4.5%)

58 (26.0%)

4 (1.8%)

91 (40.8%)

 1 (0.4%)

 3 (1.3%)

56 (25.1%)

V-prefinal

  32 (15.6%)

42 (20.5%)

8 (3.9%)

54 (26.3%)

0 (0%)

 2 (1.0%)

67 (32.7%)

V-early

 2 (3.7%)

 9 (16.7%)

4 (7.4%)

25 (46.3%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

14 (25.9%)

The overall impression is that the translation is quite free in terms of element order. All the figures for clauses modifying the source text are well over 50%. As far as V-final clauses are concerned, a third of them follow the Latin but only 10 (4.5%) are close copies of the source text, as in (128). Among clauses modifying the Latin, most involve a change in the position of the verb, as in (129). All in all, the element order pattern seems highly independent of the source text in Genesis. (128) þæt ðu samod ne losige (OE Genesis, cl. 1323) that you-SG also not perish   (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1566) ne et tu simul pereas lest and you-SG also perish   ‘So that you also do not perish’  (Gen 19:17)

(129) ðæt ic þa burh ne towende (OE Genesis, cl. 1334) that I the city not destroy   ut non subvertam urbem (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1583) that not destroy-1SG city-ACC   ‘That I do not destroy the city’  (Gen 19:21)



V-prefinal clauses in Genesis are closest to the source text, but the number of those following the Latin, at 40%, is still a minority. Example (130) involves the addition of an overt subject to the Latin model, which is most common in clauses classified as following the Latin. Moreover, the number of exact copies is higher for V-prefinal than for V-final (ca. 15% vs. 4%). The most frequent modification in the



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 215

case of V-prefinal clauses involves free translation, as in (131), which emphasises the native character of this pattern. (130) for þi ge gecyrdon to eowrum ðeowan (OE Genesis, cl. 1131) because you-PL came to your servant   enim declinastis ad servum vestrum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1336) for descended-2PL to servant your   ‘For you came to your servant’  (Gen 18:5)



(OE Genesis, cl. 395) (131) þa he wæs nigonhundwintre & twelfwintre   when he was nine hundred and twelve ‘When he was nine hundred and twelve’  (Gen 5:8) et facti sunt omnes dies Seth and completed were all days Seth’s nongentorum duodecim annorum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 415) nine hundred twelve years   ‘And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years’  (Gen 5:8)

V-early clauses in Genesis follow the Latin in (only) 28% of cases, most of which involve addition of an overt subject without any other changes to the element order, as in (132); the number of close copies is lowest compared to the other element order patterns. Most V-early clauses involve modification of the element order in the source text. 46% of all V-early subordinate clauses from Genesis change the original verb position, like (133); free translation is also quite common (ca. 26%). (132) ðæt hi beon ægðer ge ðe ge him that they are either you-SG.DAT or them-DAT to bigleofan (OE Genesis, cl. 506) as food   et erunt tam tibi quam illis in cibum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 539) and are-FUT so you as them-DAT as food   ‘And it shall be food for you and them’  (Gen 6:21)

(133) for þan ðe he ys eac of ðinum sæde (OE Genesis, cl. 1495) because he is also of your seed   quia semen tuum est (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1764) because seed your is   ‘Because he is your seed’  (Gen 21:13)

On the whole, Genesis appears to be a rather independent translation as far as subordinate clauses are concerned, and this applies to all the categories of element order.

216 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Bede: The relationship between the OE version of Bede and its Latin source is shown in Tables 46 and 47. Table 46.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Bede. Order

following

modifying

V-final

319 (56.6%)

245 (43.4%)

564

V-prefinal

  25 (14.9%)

143 (85.1%)

168

V-early

  19 (16.0%)

100 (84.0%)

119

Table 47.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Bede. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V Added Elaboration Free transposition V lation

V-final

130 (23.0%)

123 (21.8%)

66 (11.7%)

89 (15.8%)

3 (0.5%)

  15 (2.7%)

138 (24.5%)

V-prefinal

12 (7.1%)

 9 (5.4%)

4 (2.4%)

96 (57.1%)

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

  45 (26.8%)

V-early

 8 (6.7%)

 6 (5.0%)

5 (4.2%)

63 (52.9%)

3 (2.5%)

0 (0%)

  34 (28.6%)

The degree of correspondence varies depending on the pattern. The V-final order, which is predominant in Bede’s subordinate clauses, is quite close to the Latin, while the other orders are independent of the source text to a considerable degree. As far as V-final clauses are concerned, 23% of them are close copies of the original, as in (134). In an almost equal number of V-final clauses, the only intervention of the translator is the addition of an overt subject, as in (135). The most frequent modification involves free translation, shown in (136). In short, the high frequency of the V-final pattern seems to be directly related to source text interference: since the Latin original is strongly V-final, the source text directly strengthens the native OE pattern. (134) þætte Godes cirice mid æteacnesse onfo (OE Bede, cl. 1073) that God’s church with increase take   ut ecclesia cum augmento recipiat (Lat. Bede, cl. 1266) that church with increase recovers   ‘That God’s church recovers with increase’



(135) bi þæm we sprecað (OE Bede, cl. 1330) about whom we speak  



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 217

de quibus loquimur (Lat. Bede, cl. 1545) of whom speak-1PL   ‘Of whom we speak’ (136) swa we ær cwædon (OE Bede, cl. 1518) as we before said   ‘As we said before’ ... iuxta praefinitam sententiam ... (Lat. Bede, cl. 1743) according to previous sentence   ‘According to the previous sentence’

There are few clauses following the Latin in the V-prefinal order. The overwhelming majority (85%) of clauses in this group modify the Latin. This is good evidence for the independence of this pattern in the text. In most cases, the verb position is changed, as shown in (137), or the clause is translated rather freely, as in (138). (137) þæt heo sy bescyred from Godes circan ingonge (OE Bede, cl. 1312) that she be cut off from God’s church-GEN entering   ut ingressu ecclesiae priuetur (Lat. Bede, cl. 1531) to entering church -ABL deprive-3SG.PASS   ‘That she should be cut off from entering God’s church’ (138) se wæs feorða eac feowertigum fram Agusto who was fourth and forty from Augustus þam casere (OE Bede, cl. 412) the emperor   ‘Who was the forty fourth from the emperor Augustus’ tenente imperium Honorio Augusto, filio Theodosii keeping-ABL empire Honorius Augustus-ABL son Theodosius’-ABL minoris, loco ab Augusto X.LIIII (Lat. Bede, cl. 585) junior place-ABL from Augustus 44   ‘With the empire ruled by Honorius Augustus, the son of Theodosius junior, the forty-fourth from the emperor Augustus’

As for the V-early order in Bede, it is, as Table 46 shows, used largely independently of the Latin. Similarly to the V-prefinal order, the most common modification that we encounter is a change in the verb position, shown in (139), and free translation, illustrated by (140).

(139) þa he Drihten wolde his folc gesprecende beon when he Lord would his folk speaking be in Sinai dune (OE Bede, cl. 1493) in Sinai mountain  

218 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

quod in Sina monte Dominus ad populum because in Sinai mountain Lord to people locuturus (Lat. Bede, cl. 1726) speaking-FUT   ‘When the Lord would address his people on Mount Sinai’ (140) þæt heo ne mot in circan gongan (OE Bede, cl. 1262) that she not may in church go   ‘That she may not go into church’ prohibemus ecclesiam Si itaque enixam mulierem if now bearing woman-ACC forbid-1PL church-ACC intrare (Lat. Bede, cl. 1482–1483) enter   ‘Now if we forbid a woman after childbirth to go to church’

The general picture of the relation to the source text varies in Bede. The element order closest to the Latin is V-final, which is also expected according to our knowledge of OE grammar. It is interesting that the rival orders, V-prefinal and V-early, while not so numerous, show a great degree of independence from the source text, so it is impossible to claim that these are non-native orders in Bede. Luke: Tables 48 and 49 present the data on the relation between the OE text of Luke and the Vulgate. Table 48.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Luke. Order

following

modifying

total

V-final

174 (45.9%)

205 (54.1%)

379

V-prefinal

  80 (56.3%)

  62 (43.7%)

142

V-early

  22 (57.9%)

  16 (42.1%)

  38

Table 49.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Luke. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V Added Elaboration Free transposition V lation

V-final

89 (23.5%)

72 (19.0%)

13 (3.4%)

172 (45.4%)

   3 (0.8%)

 5 (1.3%)

25 (6.6%)

V-prefinal

33 (23.2%)

35 (24.6%)

12 (8.5%)

43 (30.3%)

   6 (4.2%)

 2 (1.4%)

11 (7.7%)

V-early

10 (26.3%)

 7 (18.4%)

   5 (13.2%)

12 (31.6%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

   4 (10.5%)



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 219

The translation proves moderately independent in terms of element order; the figures for clauses following and modifying the Latin order are all rather close to 50%, and the non-V-final orders are closer to the Latin text than the V-final order. In Luke, 23% of clauses with the V-final order are close copies of the source text, as in (141). Among the modifications, some are still relatively close to the source, simply rearranging the constituents, including the verb, like (142). Only 6% of V-final clauses are a product of a freer translation. (141) forþam þe mægen of him eode (OE Luke, cl. 889) because virtue of him went   quia virtus de illo exiebat (Lat. Luke, cl. 974) because virtue from him went   ‘For virtue went out from him’  (Lk 6:19)

(142) Ða hig to him comun (OE Luke, cl. 1116) when they to him came   cum autem venissent ad eum viri (Lat. Luke, cl. 1200) when also came to him men   ‘When the men came to him’  (Lk 7:20)

As Table  48 shows, about 56% of V-prefinal clauses follow the source text. The Latin is either copied entirely or with the addition of an overt subject, as in (143) and (144) respectively. Modification of order consists mainly in changing the position of the verb, as in (145); however, this happens less often than in the case of V-final clauses (30% vs. 45%). (143) þæt sum sacerd ferde on þam ylcan wege (OE Luke, cl. 1905) that some priest went on the same way   ut sacerdos quidam descenderet eadem via (Lat. Luke, cl. 2040) that priest some went this way   ‘That a certain priest went down the same way’  (Lk 10:31) (144) þæs ic ne eom wyrþe … (OE Luke, cl. 444) whose I not am worthy   cuius non sum dignus … (Lat. Luke, cl. 450) whose not am worthy   ‘Whose [shoes] I am not worthy [to loose]’  (Lk 3:16) (145) þe feoll on þa ðornas (OE Luke, cl. 1311) which fell on the thorns   quod autem in spinis cecidit (Lat. Luke, cl. 1410) which also in thorns fell   ‘Which fell among thorns’  (Lk 8:14)

220 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

V-early clauses are not very numerous in Luke. It is clear from our data that more than half of them follow the Latin model, as is the case in (146). Modifications of the Latin attested in this group consist mainly of changing the position of the verb, as shown by (147), though it must be emphasised that the absolute numbers are very low. (OE Luke, cl. 1625) (146) Se þe wyle hys sawle hale gedon who will his soul saved make   qui enim voluerit animam suam salvam facere (Lat. Luke, cl. 1744) who for wants soul his saved make   ‘Who will save his soul’  (Lk 9:24)



(147) þæt eower naman synt on heofonum awritene (OE Luke, cl. 1856) that your names are in heaven written   quod nomina vestra scripta sunt in caelis (Lat. Luke, cl. 1986) that names your written are in heaven   ‘That your names are written in heaven’  (Lk 10:20)

All in all, subordinate clauses in Luke have relatively high levels of coincidence with the Latin. Yet, the proportion of V-final clauses following the Latin is lower than in the case of the rival orders: V-prefinal and V-early. V-final clauses are by far the most frequent throughout the text, and the high figures of correspondence to the source text for the minority patterns suggest that their incidence is not fully native, but strengthened by the Latin. Still, a large proportion of both V-prefinal and V-early clauses show modifications of the order found in the source text, so it is impossible to claim that they are completely non-native calques. Tatian: Tables 50 and 51 show the relation between the OHG text of Tatian and the Latin source. There is a decisive majority of clauses following the Latin in all the element orders distinguished, the lowest figure being 69% for the V-final order. If we count all subordinate clauses together, the rate of correspondence with the source text is 77%. Given these figures, it is rather obvious that we are dealing with a translation that is influenced by the source text to a large extent. Table 50.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Tatian. Order

following

modifying

total

V-final

284 (68.7%)

129 (31.3%)

413

V-prefinal

293 (84.9%)

  52 (15.1%)

345

V-early

  89 (85.6%)

  15 (14.4%)

104

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 221



Table 51.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Tatian. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V position

Added Elaboration Free V translation

V-final

164 (39.7%)

110 (26.6%)

10 (2.4%)

102 (24.7%)

 3 (0.7%)

 7 (1.7%)

17 (4.1%)

V-prefinal

195 (56.5%)

  83 (24.1%)

15 (4.3%)

  36 (10.4%)

 3 (0.9%)

 1 (0.3%)

12 (3.5%)

V-early

  60 (57.7%)

  23 (22.1%)

 6 (5.8%)

  14 (13.5%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 1 (1.0%)

We first consider the V-final order, where ca. 40% of clauses copy the source text order phrase for phrase, as in (148), while in 26%, the only change is the addition of an overt subject, as in (149). This example is also important because it is very short; the Latin clause consists only of the conjunction and the verb. Such clauses are quite common in Tatian, cf. Table 2. While the Latin and OHG versions are undeniably parallel, it would be inappropriate to talk of ‘slavish translation’ in this case; the translators did not have a real choice if they wanted to stay close to the source, which they naturally did because Tatian is a biblical line-by-line translation. Clauses that modify the Latin are less frequent, but 25% of all V-final clauses involve a change in the verb position, as in (150), which is a high result for Tatian. (148) ér thanne dih Philippus gruozti (OHG Tatian, cl. 906) before you-SG.ACC Philip called   priusquam te Philippus vocaret (Lat. Tatian, cl. 899) before you-SG.ACC Philip called   ‘Before Philip called you’  (Jn 1:48)



(149) Thanne thu fastes (OHG Tatian, cl. 1469) when you-SG fast   cum ieiunas (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1446) when fast-2SG   ‘When you fast’  (Mt 6:17)

(150) thaz sie mit iro hantun thih nemen (OHG Tatian, cl. 824) that they with their hands you-SG.ACC take   et in manibus tollent te (Lat. Tatian, cl. 817) and in hands take-3PL you-SG.ACC   ‘That they take you with their hands’  (Lk 4:11)

An overwhelming majority of the V-prefinal clauses in Tatian have been classified as following the Latin in Table 50; 56% of these clauses are exact phrase by phrase

222 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

copies of the Latin element order, as in (151). Modifications of the Latin order are most often changes of the verb position, which is the case in 10% of V-prefinal clauses, represented here by (152). In that example, it is characteristic that the verb in the Latin clause comes even earlier in the clause than in OHG, and it is so in the majority of this group of clauses. By contrast, Latin V-final order is rarely changed to V-prefinal. (151) thaz thin bruoder habet sihuúaz uúidar thír (OHG Tatian, cl. 1265) that your brother has something against you-SG   quia frater tuus habet aliquid adversum te (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1248) that brother your has something against you-SG   ‘That your brother has anything against you’  (Mt 5:23)

(152) oba thu Christ ni bist noh Helias noh uuizago (OHG Tatian, cl. 740) if you-SG Christ not are nor Elias nor prophet   si tu non es Christus neque Helias neque propheta (Lat. Tatian, cl. 733) if you-SG not are Christ nor Elias nor prophet   ‘If you are not Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet’  (Jn 1:25)

The V-early order in Tatian is also very close to the Latin source text, as indicated in Table  50. (153) exemplifies exact copying of element order, found in 58% of V-early clauses. Modifications of the Latin order are restricted to some infrequent changes in the verb position, as in (154). (153) bithiu uuanta nist unodi mit gote because not-is impossible with god íogiuuelih uuort (OHG Tatian, cl. 126) any word   quia non erit impossibile apud deum because not is-FUT impossible with god omne verbum (Lat. Tatian, cl. 127) each word   ‘Because no word shall be impossible with God’  (Lk 1:37)

(154) uuanta sie ni mugun thie sela arslahan (OHG Tatian, cl. 1807) because they not may the soul kill   animam autem non possunt occidere (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1773) soul-ACC also not can-3PL kill   ‘Because they are not able to kill the soul’  (Mt 10:28)



In short, the above analysis has shown that the low frequency of the V-final order in Tatian is a direct consequence of source text influence because ca. 85% of both V-prefinal and V-early clauses follow the Latin order, whereas the vast majority of

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 223



clauses showing modifications of the order of the source text are V-final in the target text. What is more, the V-final order in Latin is rarely changed into V-prefinal or V-early in OHG, which shows that V-final functioned as the most natural order for subordinate clauses in this text. Isidor: Tables 52 and 53 present the data on the degree of correspondence between the Latin original and the OHG version of Isidor. Closeness to the original is most evident with regard to the V-final order, while other orders show more independence. Table 52.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Isidor. Order

following

modifying

Total

V-final

89 (51.4%)

84 (48.6%)

173

V-prefinal

28 (43.8%)

36 (56.3%)

  64

V-early

  6 (20.0%)

24 (80.0%)

  30

Table 53.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Isidor. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V Added Elaboration Free transposition V lation

V-final

47 (27.2%)

18 (10.4%)

24 (13.9%)

55 (31.8%)

2 (1.2%)

5 (2.9%)

22 (12.7%)

V-prefinal

13 (20.3%)

11 (17.2%)

4 (6.3%)

27 (42.2%)

2 (3.1%)

2 (3.1%)

5 (7.8%)

V-early

2 (6.7%)

 3 (10.0%)

1 (3.3%)

16 (53.3%)

1 (3.3%)

1 (3.3%)

 6 (20.0%)

The V-final clauses mostly follow the Latin; 27% of them are phrase for phrase copies, as exemplified by (155). However, 32% of V-final clauses involve a change in the position of the verb, as in (156); more freely translated clauses are present, but much less frequent. chiboran (OHG Isidor, cl. 70) (155) huueo dher selbo sii   how the same is-SBJ born quomodo idem sit genitus (Lat. Isidor, cl. 171) how the same is-SBJ born   ‘How the same one may be born’

224 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(156) so dhine daga arfullide uuerdhant (OHG Isidor, cl. 732) when your days fulfilled become   cum repleti fuerint dies tui (Lat. Isidor, cl. 813) when fulfilled are days your   ‘When your days are fulfilled’

Next, the V-prefinal clauses following Latin, exemplified by (157), form a sizeable minority. The most common modification of the original element order is a change of the verb position, as in (158); it may be observed in 42% of all V-prefinal clauses. (OHG Isidor, cl. 703) (157) dher uuesan scal fona dhinem sunim shall from your son   which be quod erit de filiis tuis (Lat. Isidor, cl. 784) which is-FUT from son your   ‘Which will be from your son’ (158) Nibu druhtin uns firleazssi samun (OHG Isidor, cl. 644) if not lord us leaves seed   Nisi dominus reliquisset nobis semen (Lat. Isidor, cl. 728) if not lord leaves us seed   ‘Unless the lord leaves us seed’

V-early subordinate clauses in Isidor are overwhelmingly independent of the Latin; more than half of them show a change in the verb position, as illustrated by (159). (159) bidhiu huuanda got uuard man chiuuordan (OHG Isidor, cl. 480) because god was man become   ‘Because God became a man’ quia homo factus est (Lat. Isidor, cl. 567) because man made was   ‘Because [God] became a man’

In sum, despite visibly lower numbers, the situation in Isidor resembles Bede: the source text seems to increase the frequency of V-final, while V-early is used in Isidor independently of the original. Physiologus: The statistics for Physiologus, shown in Tables 54 and 55, are very interesting. In all the order types, clauses modifying Latin vastly outnumber those following it, so that the text appears to be the most independent of all the analysed translations as far as subordinate clauses are concerned.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 225



Table 54.  Relation to Latin in subordinate clauses in Physiologus. Order

following

modifying

Total

V-final

6 (9.8%)

55 (90.2%)

61

V-prefinal

  8 (21.6%)

29 (78.4%)

37

V-early

  3 (30.0%)

  7 (70.0%)

10

Table 55.  Subdivision of subordinate clauses following and modifying Latin in Physiologus. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V Added Elaboration Free transposition V lation

V-final

3 (4.9%)

2 (3.3%)

 1 (1.6%)

14 (23.0%)

 1 (1.6%)

 1 (1.6%)

39 (63.9)

V-prefinal

 6 (16.2%)

2 (5.4%)

0 (0%)

 6 (16.2%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

   23 (62.2%)

V-early

 1 (10.0%)

 1 (10.0%)

   1 (10.0%)

 2 (20.0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

    5 (50.0%)

V-final clauses rarely copy the original order. The most common modification that we find in this group of clauses is free translation. (160) shows how an independent Latin clause is joined to the preceding one and translated into OHG as subordinate. Free translation accounts for 64% of clauses with the V-final order in the translation. (161) is one of the clauses that are closer to the source text, but still involve a change in the verb position. (160) so uerit er mit sinemo uuibe ze demo paradyse, dar diu mandragora then goes he with his woman to the paradise where the mandragora uuasset (OHG Phys., cl. 163–164) grows   ‘Then he and his wife go to the paradise where mandragora grows’ vadit in orientem cum femina sua usque in proximum paradisi... Est autem goes in east with woman his until near paradise is also ibidem herba mandragora nomine (Lat. Phys., cl. 175, 177) there herb mandragora name-ABL   ‘He goes east with his wife to an area close to paradise… There is a plant there called mandragora’

226 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(161) Sosez divschef gesihet (OHG Phys., cl. 211) when-it ship sees   et cum viderit naves velificantes (Lat. Phys., cl. 234) and when see-3SG ships sailing   ‘And when it sees ships’

Similarly to V-final clauses, few V-prefinal subordinates in Physiologus follow the source text order. The most common modification is free translation, as shown in (162). Apart from the complete paraphrase of the internal clause structure (which nevertheless very accurately renders the meaning of the original), the status of the clause is also changed. A main clause in Latin is translated as a subordinate clause in OHG. (162) Daz er rasta an demo menisgemo lihamin (OHG Phys., cl. 27) that he rests on the human body   ‘That he rests in the human body’ Caro enim domini quievit (Lat. Phys., cl.22) body for lord’s rests   ‘For the Lord’s body rests’

V-early clauses are not particularly numerous in Physiologus, but they fit the tendencies we have noted so far, as 5 out of 10 clauses involve free translation, cf. (163). (163) daz er liget, alsor tot si, under der erdo (OHG Phys., cl. 54) that he lies as if-he dead was under the earth   ‘That he lies under the ground, as if he was dead’ Solus autem draco ... abscondit se in subterraneis only for dragon hides REFL in subterranean speluncis (Lat. Phys., cl.51) cave   ‘Only the dragon hides himself in a subterranean cave’

All in all, the order of subordinate clauses in Physiologus seems completely independent of the Latin source text, with all the patterns modifying the original order to a great extent. In the earlier part of this section, we focused on the possible influence of the source texts on the particular element orders in the analysed translations. In Table 56, we bring all the orders together, showing the general rate of modification of the Latin element order.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 227



Table 56.  Proportions of subordinate clauses with modified element order. Text

Modified order

total

Genesis

313 (64.9%)

482

Bede

488 (57.3%)

851

Luke

283 (50.6%)

559

Tatian

196 (22.7%)

862

Isidor

144 (53.9%)

267

Physiologus

  91 (84.3%)

108

As can be seen, Physiologus is by far the most independent of the translations, and Genesis also has a clear majority of clauses modifying the Latin. Bede, Luke and Isidor all have slight majorities with modified order, and Tatian stands out as a translation that is very close to the source text.25 In Table 57, we further examine the types of modifications in all the texts. In Table 58, we bring together the data on the degree of closeness in the clauses following the Latin. As is clear from the detailed analysis presented above, these clauses show Latin influence to a varying extent. Table 57.  Subordinate clauses modifying Latin. Text

changed ­position of V

added V

elaboration of a minimal clause

free transla- Total modifytions ing Latin

Genesis

170 (35.3%)

1 (0.2%)

  5 (1.0%)

137 (28.4%)

313 (64.9%)

Bede

248 (29.1%)

8 (0.9%)

15 (1.8%)

217 (25.5%)

488 (57.3%)

Luke

227 (40.6%)

9 (1.6%)

  7 (1.3%)

40 (7.2%)

283 (50.6%)

Tatian

152 (17.6%)

6 (0.7%)

  8 (0.9%)

30 (3.5%)

196 (22.7%)

Isidor

  98 (36.7%)

5 (1.9%)

  8 (3.0%)

  33 (12.4%)

144 (53.9%)

Physiologus

  22 (20.4%)

1 (0.9%)

  1 (0.9%)

  67 (62.0%)

  91 (84.3%)

The analysed texts are generally close translations in the more general sense; the majority of modifications are changes of order, while, in other respects, the clause in question is still recognisable as the equivalent of the clause in the source text. 25.  The table is parallel to Table 43 in Chapter 3. However, the figures in both are not directly comparable because of slightly different criteria for dividing clauses into ‘following’ and ‘modifying’ Latin. In particular, the present analysis counts addition of an overt pronominal subject in OE/OHG as following the Latin even when there is no subject in Latin. In Chapter 3, where the position of the subject in the clause plays a crucial role, such an assumption would be erroneous. The logical effect is that at face value subordinate clauses appear more slavishly translated than main declaratives. This is not necessarily the case as added subjects are very common in both types of clauses.

228 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

The only exception is Physiologus, where free translations are not only the most common modification, but actually account for the majority of all subordinates in the text. This certainly sets Physiologus apart from all the other texts. The interesting conclusion appears to be that the independence of this text is a great asset that partially cancels out the problems related to its shortness. Concerning the other texts, free translations are not infrequent in Genesis and Bede, while the texts with the lowest number of free translations, Luke and Tatian, are both gospel translations. Therefore, we have demonstrated empirically that the declared intentions of the translators of the Scripture, who wanted to stay close to the sacred original, were indeed adhered to in the practice of translating the New Testament into OE and OHG. We cannot say the same about Genesis, which is translated much more freely, so it seems that Ælfric’s willingness to alter the element order if need be was often reflected in his practice, at least in the case of subordinate clauses. Table 58.  Subordinate clauses following Latin. Text

copied order

added S

other minor modification

Total following Latin

44 (9.1%)

109 (22.6%)

16 (3.3%)

169 (35.1%)

Bede

150 (17.6%)

138 (16.2%)

75 (8.8%)

363 (42.7%)

Luke

132 (23.6%)

114 (20.4%)

30 (5.4%)

276 (49.4%)

Tatian

419 (48.7%)

216 (25.1%)

31 (3.6%)

666 (77.3%)

Isidor

  62 (23.2%)

  32 (12.0%)

  29 (10.9%)

123 (46.1%)

10 (9.3%)

  5 (4.6%)

  2 (1.9%)

  17 (15.7%)

Genesis

Physiologus

Table 58 shows the degree of closeness to the source text in the clauses classified as following the Latin. As can be seen, the most important categories are clauses with copied order and those with additions of an overt subject as the only change. The former are more numerous in all the texts except Genesis. The most notable figure is that for copied order in Tatian (more than 400 clauses parallel to the Latin), amounting to almost half of all subordinates in the text. Clauses with copied order are also frequent in Isidor and Luke, but less so in Bede. While it is easy to note the similarity of a given clause in the source text and target text, it is much more difficult to tell whether we are dealing with real interference of the source language or with largely coincidental similarity. This can be at least partly resolved by analysing separately the order distribution in clauses modifying the Latin and following it. In this way, we will be able to see to what extent clauses following the Latin change the overall distribution of patterns in the texts, cf. Table 59.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 229



Table 59.  Comparison of order distribution in clauses following and modifying Latin. Text

Following Latin V-final

V-prefinal

Modifying Latin V-early

V-final

V-prefinal

V-early

Genesis

  72 (42.6%)   82 (48.5%)

15 (8.9%)

151 (48.2%) 123 (39.3%)   39 (12.5%)

Bede

319 (87.9%)

19 (5.2%)

245 (50.2%) 143 (29.3%) 100 (20.5%)

Luke

174 (63.0%)   80 (29.0%)

22 (8.0%)

205 (72.4%)   62 (21.9%)

16 (5.7%)

Tatian

284 (42.6%) 293 (44.0%)   89 (13.4%) 129 (65.8%)   52 (26.3%)

15 (7.7%)

Isidor

  89 (72.4%)   28 (22.8%)

25 (6.9%)

  6 (4.9%)

  84 (58.3%)   36 (25.0%)   24 (16.7%)

Physiologus    6 (35.3%)    8 (47.1%)    3 (17.6%)   55 (60.4%)   29 (31.9%)    7 (7.7%%)

The comparison of the frequencies of orders reveals areas of likely source text influence. First of all, in Bede, the frequency of the V-final order is very much increased when supported by Latin. In the remaining OE texts, it is the V-prefinal order that rises with Latin influence, but the effect is much weaker. In the OHG texts, Latin seems to promote V-prefinal in Tatian and Physiologus and V-final in Isidor. This is what we can observe on the basis of Table  59, but we need to note that in Physiologus, there are very few clauses following the Latin, so any effect of the source text would be reduced to a handful of clauses, while in Luke and Genesis, the change in the proportions that could be attributed to Latin is small. These observations are confirmed by the chi-square test: in Genesis, Luke and Physiologus, the difference between clauses following and modifying Latin is insignificant, while in Bede, Tatian and Isidor, these two groups of clauses display statistically significant discrepancies in order distribution. 5.11 Summary and conclusions The analysis presented in this chapter takes into consideration a number of factors in order to determine the rules governing the element order of subordinate clauses in the OE and OHG translations selected for the analysis. On the whole, we have noticed several important similarities between the languages. Firstly, with some qualification, we can confirm the importance of V-final as the order characteristic of subordinate clauses in both languages. The V-final order enjoys the highest frequency in all the texts, but it does not always constitute the majority. Its main competitor is the V-prefinal order that we associate with the process of extraposition, meaning that V-prefinal can be deemed an extension of V-finality. Thus, loosely defined V-finality (combining both these orders) is definitely very well represented. On the other hand, all the texts also have clauses with the V-early

230 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

order, which are exceptions to V-finality, and in all the texts, at least some of these are independent of the Latin sources. We notice several other similarities between the languages. As shown in section 5.5, as far as post-verbal phrases in V-prefinal clauses are concerned, OE and OHG are virtually identical, both qualitatively (displaying a large array of extraposed constituents) and even quantitatively (showing similar frequencies of extraposition of different types of phrases). Also, in both languages, weight of phrases seems to play a role in determining element order (it turned out to be a statistically significant factor in the choice between V-final and V-prefinal order in all the texts). The analysis of the types and subtypes of subordinates was less fruitful; however, it turned out that in both languages, dependent questions are more V-final than other nominal clauses, and free relatives are more V-final than true relatives. We have not identified any consistent differences between the languages, which shows how similar OE and OHG were in terms of element order in subordinate clauses. Still, we can make a few more generalisations for OE on its own: relative clauses are more V-final than other subordinates, and within relatives, there is a consistent difference between those introduced by pronominal forms and those which are introduced by the relative particle (or by a combination of a pronoun and the relative particle). Throughout the chapter, we have considered a number of factors, which, of course, interact with one another. We applied statistical methods to investigate which of the factors are most important. Below we present the results in the form of decision trees. The variables used by the classifier to predict the element order of subordinate clauses are: a. Latin order: Latin element orders were grouped according to the pattern which they had most likely inspired. Thus, when the (finite or non-finite) verb in the Latin is in the final position, it is treated as a model for the V-final order. When the Latin finite or non-finite verb is in the penultimate position, it is treated as a model for the V-prefinal order. All other orders are treated as models for the V-early pattern. However, when the verb is not expressed in the Latin clause, the clause is radically paraphrased, or there is no clear source for the OE/OHG clause, Latin order is labelled as ‘other’. b. Clause type: adverbial, nominal or relative



Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 231

c. Clause subtype: clauses of time, place, consequence, manner etc. for adverbial clauses, dependent statements, questions and requests for nominal clauses, and free and true relative clauses d. Presence of heavy phrase: a clause with or without a heavy phrase The decision tree generated for Genesis shows that the main predictor which models the choice between V-final and V-prefinal is the presence of a heavy phrase. Note that the classifier did not even try to predict the use of the V-early pattern; this order was simply ignored because of its low frequency.  presence of heavy phr = with heavy phrase: V-prefinal (157.0/52.0)26 presence of heavy phr = no heavy phrase: V-final (325.0/120.0)

In Bede, the presence of a heavy phrase is also the basis for the primary split of the tree, but within clauses with heavy phrases, the tree splits further on into various Latin orders. What is more, the Latin models actually favour the corresponding OE element order patterns: V-final predicts V-final, V-prefinal predicts V-prefinal, and V-early predicts V-early, which shows that the influence of Latin on the OE Bede is quite strong.

presence of heavy phr = with heavy phrase27 | Latin_order = model for V-final: V-final (273.0/118.0) | Latin_order = model for V-prefinal: V-prefinal (53.0/27.0) | Latin_order = model for V-early: V-early (32.0/16.0) | Latin_order = other: V-final (13.0/6.0) presence of heavy phr = no heavy phrase: V-final (480.0/98.0)

The tree generated for Luke resembles the one for Genesis; the only split is into clauses with and without heavy phrases. Interestingly, both OE biblical translations show no traces of Latin interference in the trees.  presence of heavy phr = with heavy phrase: V-prefinal (124.0/60.0)28 presence of heavy phr = no heavy phrase: V-final (435.0/97.0)

26.  ‘V-prefinal’ class: 205 instances, precision 0.669, recall 0.512. ‘V-final’ class: 223 instances, precision 0.631, recall 0.919. ‘V-early’ class: 54 instances, precision 0, recall 0. 27.  ‘V-prefinal’ class: 168 instances, precision 0.491, recall 0.155. ‘V-final’ class: 564 instances, precision 0.71, recall 0.965. ‘V-early’ class: 119 instances, precision 0.5, recall 0.134. 28.  ‘V-prefinal’ class: 142 instances, precision: 0.516, recall: 0.451.’V-final’ class: 379 instances, precision: 0.777, recall: 0.892. ‘V-early’ class: 38 instances, precision: 0, recall: 0.

232 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

The tree for Tatian illustrates its closeness to the source text. Even though some native tendencies have been identified in this translation, the classifier relies on the Latin order as the only predictor for the order of subordinate clauses in this text.

Latin_order Latin_order Latin_order Latin_order

= = = =

model for V-early: V-early (136.0/48.0)29 model for V-prefinal: V-prefinal (406.0/109.0) model for V-final: V-final (310.0/14.0) other: V-prefinal (10.0/3.0)

The tree generated for Isidor stands out as the most complex one: the primary split is into Latin orders, and the Latin model for V-final order leads to the OHG V-final order in a clear majority of cases. However, when the Latin gives a model for V-early, the tree splits into subtypes of subordinate clauses, but the numbers are rather low, so the picture seems quite chaotic. Finally, when the Latin gives a model for the prefinal order, it is followed only in clauses containing heavy phrases, otherwise, the V-final pattern is used, which shows the native tendency.

Latin_order = model for V-final: V-final (140.0/31.0) Latin_order = model for V-prefinal | presence of heavy phrase = with heavy phrase: V-prefinal (39.0/17.0) | presence of heavy phrase = no heavy phrase: V-final (51.0/12.0) Latin_order = other: V-final (12.0/3.0) Latin_order = model for V-early | clause_subtype = adverbial clause of cause: V-early (3.0) | clause_subtype = adverbial clause of condition: V-prefinal (1.0) | clause_subtype = adverbial clause of consequence: V-early (2.0) | clause_subtype = adverbial clause of manner: V-final (1.0) | clause_subtype = adverbial clause of time: V-prefinal (2.0) | clause_subtype = reported statement: V-early (8.0/4.0) | clause_subtype = reported question: V-prefinal (3.0/1.0) | clause_subtype = true relative: V-prefinal (5.0/2.0)30

In Physiologus, as in Genesis and Luke, the only useful predictor chosen by the model is the presence of a heavy phrase.

29.  ‘V-prefinal’ class: 345 instances, precision: 0.729, recall: 0.875. ’V-final’ class: 413 instances, precision: 0.949, recall: 0.717. ‘V-early’ class: 104 instances, precision: 0.647, recall: 0.846. 30.  ‘V-prefinal’ class: 64 instances, precision: 0.5, recall: 0.438. ‘V-final’ class: 173 instances, precision: 0.766, recall: 0.908. ‘V-early’ class: 30 instances, precision: 0.333, recall: 0.067.

Chapter 5.  Element order in subordinate clauses 233





presence of heavy phr = with heavy phrase: V-prefinal (39.0/14.0) presence of heavy phr = no heavy phrase: V-final (69.0/18.0)31

The above decision trees do not allow for neat generalisations that might apply to the investigated languages, but it is possible to make relevant observations about some of the texts. Thus, the role of weight proves strong in Genesis, Luke and Physiologus, while the source text order is the chief factor in Tatian and, quite surprisingly, also in Isidor, often considered the ‘better’ OHG translation, reflecting native OHG order without Latin interference. It turns out that while Isidor is certainly more independent from its source than Tatian (native factors also play an important role in this text and Latin is not the only reliable predictor of order), we cannot call it a completely independent translation. Finally, Bede proves to be the translation in which the native OE patterns are to a certain extent concealed or dominated by the strongly V-final source, which is also an important observation considering the fact that this text is commonly used in syntactic studies of OE. In sum, our analysis reveals three important factors having an influence on the order of subordinate clauses, both in OE and OHG. There are two main rules or tendencies governing element order in the analysed material. One is the general tendency towards the V-final order, and the other is the tendency to extrapose heavy phrases, which produces the V-prefinal order. The interplay of these two rules explains the majority of the data in all the texts. The third factor is of course Latin interference, which plays some role in most of the texts. Table 60 brings the data on these three elements together. Table 60.  Interplay of V-finality, weight and Latin influence. Text

V-final clauses

clauses with following Latin modifying Latin clause-final heavy among remaining among remaining phrase clauses clauses

Genesis

223 (46.3%)

127 (26.3%)

49 (10.2%)

  83 (17.2%)

Bede

564 (66.3%)

144 (16.9%)

28 (3.3%)

115 (13.5%)

Luke

379 (67.8%)

  75 (13.4%)

  60 (10.7%)

45 (8.1%)

Tatian

413 (47.9%)

132 (15.3%)

267 (31.0%)

50 (5.8%)

Isidor

173 (64.8%)

  40 (15.0%)

16 (6.0%)

  38 (14.2%)

Physiologus

  61 (56.5%)

  27 (26.0%)

  5 (4.4%)

  15 (13.9%)

The first two columns in Table  60 show the V-final clauses and clauses with a heavy phrase in the clause-final positions. These clauses represent the two rules 31.  ‘V-prefinal’ class: 37 instances, precision: 0.641, recall: 0.676.’V-final’ class: 61 instances, precision: 0.739, recall: 0.836. ‘V-early’ class: 10 instances, precision: 0, recall: 0.

234 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

that affect element order in subordinate clauses. If we add up these clauses, we are still left with a considerable margin of data. The last two columns show how these remaining clauses are related to the Latin. Of course, there are numerous clauses following the source text counted in the first two columns, but these can be accounted for by one of the native rules, and the Latin might be said to simply reinforce the given rule. As shown in Table  60, the only text where the Latin model is relevant in a significant number of the remaining clauses is Tatian; its closeness to the source text is thus confirmed once again. Luke is a distant second here, Latin interference accounting for a slight majority of the remaining clauses. In the other texts, Latin influence does not explain even a half of the remaining clauses. On the whole, Latin influence in combination with the two native rules is insufficient to explain the order distributions; subordinate clauses are simply subject to more native variation in both OE and OHG.

Chapter 6

Element order in conjunct clauses

6.1 Overview of the element order in OE and OHG conjunct clauses 6.1.1

Introduction

First, the term ‘conjunct clause’ needs to be clarified. We follow the practice of Bech (2001a) and reserve this term for main declarative clauses that are introduced by coordinating conjunctions.1 Thus, not all clauses linked by co-ordination are included. (1) shows a longer sequence of conjoined clauses from the beginning of Luke. While all five clauses in the fragment are co-ordinate, the first does not count as a conjunct clause. (1) Soðlice he byð mære beforan drihtne & he ne drincð win ne beor, truly he is great before the Lord and he not drinks wine or beer & he byð gefylled on haligum gaste, þonne gyt of hys modor innoðe, & and he is filled with Holy Ghost when yet in his mother’s womb and manega Israhela bearna he gecyrð to Drihtne hyra gode. & he gæð many children of Israel he converts to the Lord their God and he goes toforan him on gaste, & Elias mihte (Luke, cl. 38–42) before him in the spirit and Elias’ might   ‘Truly he shall be great before the Lord and shall drink no wine nor beer and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even in his mother’s womb. And he shall convert many children of Israel to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias’  (Lk 1:15–17)

In a typical clause sequence like (1), the term ‘conjunct clause’ is co-terminous with “any co-ordinate clause except the first”, to use Traugott’s formulation (1972: 107). There are also cases where conjoined clauses are not as close-knit in the narration as in (1). Note the clause And nu þu byst suwiende in (2), another passage from Luke. On the lowest level of discourse coherence, it is actually the first of a tightly integrated sequence of co-ordinated clauses that describe what is going to happen to Zacharias.

1.  The term has also been used differently; e.g. Bean (1983) defines them as main clauses without an overt subject.

236 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(2) Ic eom Gabriel, ic þe stande beforan Gode, & ic eom asend wið þe I am Gabriel I who stand before God and I am sent with you sprecan, & þe ðis bodian And nu þu byst suwiende, & þu speak and you-DAT this announce and now you are dumb and you sprecan ne miht, oð þone dæg þe ðas ðing gewurðaþ (Luke, cl. 51–59) speak not might until the day that these things happen   ‘I am Gabriel, who stand before God and am sent to speak to you and to announce this to you. And now you shall be dumb and shall not be able to speak until the day when these things shall come to pass’  (Lk 1:19–20)



Still, the presence of a co-ordinating conjunction in the clause in question creates the effect of continuation, which is the characteristic feature of conjunct clauses. In fact, the conjunction links the clauses about Zacharias to the preceding sequence, where the angel sent to Zacharias presents himself. Thus, whenever a clause is introduced by a co-ordinating conjunction, we treat it as a conjunct clause even if it may appear to be the first clause in a tightly-knit sequence of clauses.2 It also needs to be stressed that we restrict ourselves to main declarative clauses. Subordinate clauses with co-ordinating conjunctions (with or without an overt subordinating conjunction) are included in the data for subordinates and discussed in Chapter 5. Interrogative and imperative main clauses, even if they are co-ordinated, are also beyond the scope of our interest in the present analysis. These exclusions are based on the analyses found in the literature. We make no claims about specific properties linking all clauses with co-ordinating conjunctions, whereas main declarative clauses with these conjunctions are said to have their own characteristics of element order, at least in OE. An important caveat that must be made is that there is a certain degree of asymmetry in the treatment of conjunct clauses in the literature on the two languages. At first, it might even seem that there is little basis for conducting a comparison. Conjunct clauses are distinguished from other main declaratives in works on OE syntax and treated as a separate category. In studies of OHG, they have received much less attention (or are thought to have no special characteristics of their own) and are not necessarily separated from other main declaratives. Still, little attention does not mean no attention, and we were able to find several relevant comments in works by different scholars that referred directly to OHG conjunct clauses. Nevertheless, even if our analysis were to confirm the overall impression based on the existing literature that conjunct clauses in OE are different from other 2.  This reasoning may appear circular at first, but we simply rely on the presence of the coordinating conjunction as the defining criterion. There are no clear and objective divisions of closeness of the neighbouring clauses in a text so any attempt at excluding clauses like the one discussed in (2) is actually more questionable than our inclusive approach.

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 237



main declarative clauses, while in OHG they are not, this would constitute an interesting difference between the languages. The coverage that conjunct clauses have received from scholars researching OE is usually restricted to the central issue of the basic element order of the category, although there are some claims about conjuncts in studies that focus primarily on other issues, and this is not very different from the situation with OHG conjuncts. Such marginal notes are usually too imprecise to serve as a basis for analysis. We are thus forced to make a number of important assumptions about the claims found in the literature. This may be a general research problem, but it is particularly severe in the present chapter, as discussed in the following two sections. 6.1.2

Conjunct clauses in OE

As far as OE conjunct clauses are concerned, the traditional view is that they tend to be V-final and so they resemble subordinates rather than other main clauses. This is the position taken by a number of classical works, e.g. Mitchell (1985: §1685) or Traugott (1992: 277). In its most extreme form, it appears in Campbell’s work: ‘ond clauses are subordinate’ (after Mitchell 1985: §3934). Traugott offers an explanation of such order preferences in conjuncts by referring to their role in discourse: “[t]his characteristic can be attributed to the fact that, from a discourse perspective, co-ordinate clause elaborate (sic!) on the initial main clause and in this sense modify it, although they are not syntactically subordinate” (Traugott 1992: 277). The mention of ‘the initial main clause’ fits cases like (1) very well. However, as we have shown in the discussion of (2), the idea that conjunct clauses are a direct elaboration and extension of ‘the first main clause’ is an oversimplification. Besides, even if we can talk of ‘discourse subordination’, as the quote seems to imply, the assumption that it should produce effects with similar or even identical element order as syntactic subordination is simply unfounded (cf. Blühdorn 2008). V-finality of conjuncts has been challenged by Bech, who claims that “conjunct clauses are not usually V-final” (2001a: 53). According to her, the link between V-finality and conjunct clauses is actually the reverse: most V-final main declarative clauses turn out to be conjuncts (Bech 2001a: 50), but the relation is not bi-directional. In Bech (2014), the sample used in Bech (2001a) was greatly expanded, and the issue was analysed in almost all the texts of the York-TorontoHelsinki corpus. The results were basically the same.3 Interestingly enough, Bech has also offered an explanation in terms of the discourse function of various orders 3.  One methodological problem is that clauses from all the texts were taken together in Bech (2014), which blurs differences between the texts.

238 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

and types of clauses. Conjuncts appear to be most akin to the unmarked order S-V/V-2 (Bech 2014).4 Davis & Bernhardt (2002: 70–72) also claim with conviction that conjuncts in OE (as well as in OHG) follow the V-2 rule. Thus, we are faced with two opposing views regarding the basic order in conjunct clauses: the older one supported by the scholarly tradition of the 20th century, and the recent one proposed by Bech (2001a, 2014). Consequently, an obvious task for us in the present analysis is to investigate which of the two analyses better describes our data. This is our main goal in section 6.2. When discussing element order in conjunct clauses, Traugott (1992: 277) makes a finer distinction by claiming that “co-ordinate clauses introduced by and are V-2 if a locative adverbial phrase or an adverb like ne or þær is present (…). Otherwise, they tend to be V-final, like subordinate clauses”. Apparently, the presence of particular constituents inside the conjunct clause may have an influence on its element order. Another feature associated with element order in conjunct clauses is the issue of subject reference. The subject of a conjunct clause may be the same as in the preceding clause (i.e. co-referential) or different. The former case (with some reservations, cf. section 6.4.) involves a single subject (which may not be overtly repeated) shared by a sequence of clauses, as in (1). Such clauses are claimed to be V-final (Hopper 1986 in Traugott 1992: 279).5 V-finality is supposed to underscore the continuity and cohesion of the given passage of the text. Traugott opposes two common orderings and their discourse roles: &… V shows continuity of subject and topic while þa-V-S introduces a new subject. Yet, she admits that the functionality of the distinction diminishes with time (Traugott 1992: 278). To sum up, the factors linked with the element order in OE conjunct clauses are: a) co-referentiality of subjects, and b) presence of certain phrase types (adverbials and negation). 6.1.3

Conjunct clauses in OHG

As already stated, conjunct clauses in OHG have been less discussed and are usually grouped with other main clauses. When Axel (2007) discusses the basics of OHG grammar and the V-2 rule in main clauses, certain of her examples contain co-ordinating conjunctions; one of them is quoted below (after Axel 2007: 5): 4.  The explanation by Traugott (1992), quoted above, also refers to discourse. Interestingly enough, the two explanations are completely at odds. 5.  The issue of co-referentiality of subjects was also signalled to us as a variable to be considered by the participants of the 17th International Conference of English Historical Linguistics in Zürich (August 2012).



Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 239

(3) Enti miin ur teili chundit deotom (Monsee Fragments V, 8) and my judgement-ACC declare-3SG nations-DAT   ‘And he shall declare my judgement to the nations’  (Mt 12, 18)

Robinson (1997) is also explicit about the order of OHG conjuncts. While there are reservations about the V-2 order and its strength, the presence of co-ordinating conjunctions does not change the overall picture (1997: 9–10). Similarly, the clause patterns provided by Bernhardt & Davis (1997: 58) for conjoined main clauses basically show the V-2 order with some possibility of V-late patterns (known in nonconjunct clauses too, see Chapter 3). Lockwood (1968: 258) also claims that the general V-2 order is not changed by the presence of co-ordinating conjunctions. In the history of German, there was a tendency for non-initial co-ordinate clauses to have the V-final order (as in OE, according to the traditional view); however, this is a late phenomenon, attested until the end of the 18th century (Axel 2007: 77–78). OHG exhibits very few such examples, with the exception of the conjunction noh ‘nor’, which “is quite frequently found with verb-end order” (Axel 2007: 78). On the other hand, clauses with the conjunction inti directly followed by the finite verb are also attested in OHG and in later periods of German (Lockwood 1968: 258). The structure can be understood as either V-1 or possibly V-2, with inti being an adverb causing S-V inversion (Axel 2007: 12), but Axel disagrees with the latter analysis. In any case, such sentences are clearly different from OE.6 Robinson (1997) suggests that et + V-1 in Latin may be connected with inti + V-1 in OHG, which would make it a calque. Axel (2007: 128–129) emphasises that this order is often found with unaccusative predicates. Specific verb types mentioned in this context are mutative verbs (verbs of change including motion verbs), verbs of saying, being and becoming, as well as auxiliary verbs, mostly passive auxiliaries, and negated verbs, which all feature V-1, also without the presence of a conjunction (cf. Chapter 4). Generally speaking, OHG is not straightforward when it comes to conjunct clauses. Although the expected order is V-2, we should be ready for some exceptions and possible surprises. We may summarise the factors linked with the element order of OHG conjunct clauses thus: a) the semantic type of the verb, b) use of the particular conjunction noh, and c) Latin influence.

6.  On the assumption that the clauses in question do not involve simple ellipsis of the subject cf. the discussion of order classification in the next section.

240 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

6.1.4

Problems of comparison and study design

One startling thing is that the lists of factors for OE and OHG (both very short) do not overlap. Thus, our initial remarks about the problems and questionability of conducting the present comparison resurface. The variable common to both languages is element order itself, and the main focus of the investigation is to determine the general order distribution in conjuncts. Due to the nature of our corpus and our research objectives, it is also necessary to include Latin influence on conjuncts in the OE texts, not only in OHG. Yet, apart from these two variables, it is dubious whether a comparative analysis of the kind performed in the other chapters makes sense. It could mean forcing OE into criteria relevant for OHG and vice versa. Our decision is to investigate the remaining factors (co-referentiality of subjects, presence of locative adverbials, semantics of the verb) for one language only. Before reaching this decision, we conducted smaller-case research on OHG using the criteria for OE. The results were neither promising nor illuminating. This part of the research was not expanded further and the results are not presented in the text of the chapter. A careful comparison of the lists of factors will reveal that we have dropped the investigation of the influence of the conjunction noh in OHG from our analysis. This is because our corpus contains only 11 clauses with this conjunction (9 of these are in one text, Tatian). Another problem is the extent of the analysis: is it sensible to single out one conjunction only? Or should we compare order distribution for all possibly relevant conjunctions in both languages? This is what we planned at an early stage of our research. Yet, the very low frequencies of all conjunctions other than the OE and and the OHG inti preclude such analyses. Note, too, that we do not analyse the role of negation in OE. This is also due to the scarcity of data. In Genesis and Bede, there are very few negated conjunct clauses, 15 and 8 respectively, which does not allow for meaningful results. Our analysis of element order rests on the two competing claims made about OE conjuncts. To ensure comparability, we must apply the same classification of orders to OHG. It is necessary to check our data against both the V-2 and the V-final rules. Thus, we need a special system of labels to fit this approach. This will be a compromise between the system used for other main clauses (Chapters 3 and 4) and for subordinates (Chapter 5). We distinguish the V-1 order, the V-2 order and the V-late order, as in other main clauses. However, within V-late clauses, we also distinguish the subcategory of V-final clauses. In this way, we take into consideration both the beginning and the end of the clause, satisfying the needs of both the claims made in the literature. Obviously, V-finality is not mutually exclusive with V-1 or V-2. (4) is ambiguous with respect to V-1 and V-final, and (5) is between V-2 and V-final. It is then



Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 241

necessary to introduce further labels: V-1-final for clauses like (4) and V-2-final for those like (5). (4) & wundrodon (Luke, cl. 63) and wondered-3PL   ‘And they wondered’  (Lk 1:21) (5) & þus cwæð (Bede, cl. 1853) and thus said   ‘And he spoke as follows’

As can be inferred, we take the surface order as the basis of this classification. Thus, if the clause has just the conjunction (which introduces the clause as a whole and does not count as a constituent) and the verb, it is V-1 at face value. Yet, it would be very misleading to treat all the conjunct clauses that start with a finite verb as representatives of the V-1 order. Compare the two clauses below, this time from OHG: (6) inti quedent thanne (Tatian, cl. 2664) and said then ‘And they said’ 

(Mt 11:18)

(Tatian, cl. 964) (7) Inti quad hér ín and said he them   ‘And he said to them’  (Mt 4:19)

The difference is in the presence or absence of an overt subject. The subject of (6) is identical to that of the preceding clause, and so it is ellipted; a common phenomenon observed in language. The effect for our classification, however, is fundamental: in spite of (6) having the verb in the first position, it cannot be treated as a genuine V-1 clause. Rather, it is a variant of V-2. On the other hand, (7) contains an overt subject and therefore represents V-1. In the course of our analysis, we will treat clauses like (6) and those like (7) as separate element orders. We may add that (4) can also be analysed as an ellipted version of V-2, much like (6). The presence of an overt subject is also of importance when the surface position of the verb is second. Clauses with an overt subject like (8) are obvious examples of the V-2 order. However, the situation is less clear if there is no overt subject in the clause, as in (9). The surface order can be interpreted differently depending on the position we believe the ellipted subject to belong in. The order &-x-V-x might render the underlying &-(S)-x-V-x or &-x-(S)-V-x or still &-x-V(S)-x. All of these are possible orders, but in the absence of a subject, this cannot be

242 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

decided.7 The subjectless surface V-2 clauses are thus another ambiguous category and need to be treated separately in our analysis. (8) Ond þa plegode he mid his wordum to þæm noman (Bede, cl. 1812) and then played he with his words to the name   ‘And then he played on the name in his words’ (9) & ðus cwæð be him (Genesis, cl. 432) and thus said-3SG about him   ‘And he said thus about him’  (Gen 5:29)

The fine-grained division described above involves eight values altogether. This allows for a very detailed classification that is meant, first of all, as a description of data. The key analysis involves the orders summarised into those consistent with the V-2 rule and those consistent with the V-final rule, as shown in Table 1. It should be borne in mind that all V-late clauses (not only those where the verb is the last constituent) are treated as consistent with the V-final rule since the V-late order is considered as a kind of extension of the V-final order (cf. Mitchell 1985: §3912, Bech 2014). Table 1.  Classification of element order patterns in conjunct clauses. true V-1

neither V-2 nor V-final rule

V-1 with no overt S

consistent with the V-2 rule

V-2

consistent with the V-2 rule

V-1-final

ambiguous: consistent with both rules

V-2 with no overt S

ambiguous: consistent with either of the rules

V-2-final

ambiguous: consistent with both rules

V-late [including V-final]

consistent with the V-final rule

Thus, our order classification is two-tiered. It is the more synthetic level of the division that plays the key role in our analysis; we will be mostly interested in the unambiguous clauses. The ambiguous ones are not very informative and are, in 7.  Note that Bean (1983: 88) does make such assumptions and uses the label SXVX for surface XVX. We do not share her disregard of other potential interpretations in this particular context, and think there is no good a priori solution. One particularly disturbing fact about Bean’s analysis of conjuncts concerns surface XV clauses, which she divides into two groups on the basis of the position of the null (i.e. absent) subject. While there is uncertainty as to how to approach subjectless clauses with surface V-2, the situation is clearer for surface V-1 without an overt subject, illustrated by (6) above. Because the true V-1 order is so rare and marked, in this case one can quite safely assume that the ellipted subject would be pre-verbal.

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 243



general, not taken into account. On the other hand, the proper V-1 clauses may be regarded as exceptions to both rules under consideration; they are included in the analysis and they represent a separate category. 6.2 Research questions The following research questions serve as the basis of our investigation: a. What general rule governs element order in conjunct clauses? b. Does co-referentiality of subjects affect element order in conjunct clauses in OE? c. Does the presence of locative phrases affect element order in conjunct clauses in OE? d. Does the semantic class of the verb affect element order in conjunct clauses in OHG? e. Does Latin element order in the source texts influence the element order in the translations? These questions correspond directly to the following sections of the chapter. 6.3 The basic element order in conjunct clauses In this section, we analyse element orders in conjunct clauses in each of the texts and describe the order distribution in order to establish the dominant tendency in each language and identify potential differences between the languages. Genesis: Table 2 presents the statistics for conjunct clauses in Genesis. Table 2.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Genesis. true V-1

   6 (1.3%)

neither rule

V-1 with no overt S

123 (27.5%)

V-2 rule

V-2

154 (34.4%)

V-1 final

  34 (7.6%)

V-2 with no overt S

  11 (2.5%)

V-2 final

  39 (8.7%)

V-late

  80 (17.9%)

[in that: V-final]

  [31 (6.9%)]

Total

447

ambiguous

V-final rule

244 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

The most common orders are V-2, as in (10), and V-1 without an overt subject, as in (11). Together, these two orders account for more than 60% of the clauses. Both orders are categories consistent with the V-2 rule, contradicting the claim that conjunct clauses are generally V-final. (10) & Abram underfeng fela sceatta for hyre (Genesis, cl. 793) and Abram got many goods for her   ‘And Abram received many goods for her’  (Gen 12:16) (Genesis, cl. 550) (11) & asende wind ofer eorðan and sent-3SG wind over earth   ‘And sent a wind upon the earth’  (Gen 8:1)

V-late clauses are clearly a minority, and within this category, there are relatively few V-final clauses, represented by (12). What is more, there are also short ambiguous clauses, all three types of which together account for about 19% of the total number of conjunct clauses.8 The number of genuine V-1 clauses is very small. They are exemplified by (13). (12) ne ic sylf hyt ne gehyrde (Genesis, cl. 1539) nor I myself it not heard   ‘nor I myself heard of it’  (Gen 21:26) (13) & wæs ða geworden æfen & mergen oðer dæg (Genesis, cl. 23) and was then made evening and morning second day   ‘And then it was the evening and morning of the second day’  (Gen 1:8)

Evidently, conjunct clauses in Genesis do not conform to the purported V-finality. This supports Bech’s (2001a, 2014) view on the type’s main order, not the traditional view. Conjunct clauses thus appear to be similar to other main declaratives. A characteristic feature of V-2 in main declaratives is the availability of S-V inversion (cf. Chapter 3). This is present in conjuncts in Genesis, too, but marginally, represented by only 6 clauses altogether, (14) being one of them. (14) & ða wæs geworden æfen & merigen se fifta dæg (Genesis, cl. 77) and then was made evening and morning the fifth day   ‘And then it was the evening and morning of the fifth day’  (Gen 1:23)

What is more, it is well known that not all non-conjunct main declaratives in OE are strictly V-2 (see Chapter 3). Thus, it seems reasonable to compare the structure of conjunct and non-conjunct clauses representing the V-late order. A closer look 8.  We do not give examples of these orders here. The reader is referred to (4), (5) and (9) above. This is because most of these clauses are very short and virtually identical in structure so there is little point in multiplying examples.

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 245



at (12) makes this evident. The clause is an exception to the V-2 rule because the direct object hyt stands as an intervening phrase between S and V. But this is only to be expected since the object is pronominal. The V-2 rule is subject to interaction with other native OE rules. Light intervening phrases (especially personal pronouns) are commonplace. Another typical V-late pattern involves lack of inversion of a subject pronoun after an introductory phrase other than S (the x-SPRON-V pattern). These typical effects indeed account for most of the strictly V-final conjunct clauses found in Genesis. Out of 31 such clauses, only 3 demonstrate uninverted fully-fledged subjects, like (15), and 2 have relatively heavy intervening phrases, like (16). (15) & ðær on anum scræfe ealle ðreo wunedon (Genesis, cl. 1355) and there in a cave all three lived   ‘And all three of them lived there in a cave’  (Gen 19:30) (16) & he ðær Isaace wif gefette (Genesis, cl. 1688) and he there Isaac-DAT wife-ACC fetched   ‘And there he found a wife for Isaac’  [no clear source in the Vulgate]

Bede: In Bede, illustrated in Table 3, the largest share of conjunct clauses (ca. 45%) demonstrate the V-late order, and almost a third of all conjunct clauses follow the V-final order, as in (17). Table 3.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Bede. true V-1

   3 (0.9%)

neither rule

V-1 with no overt S

  35 (10.4%)

V-2 rule

V-2

  37 (11.0%)

V-1-final

  53 (15.8%)

V-2 with no overt S

  21 (6.3%)

V-2-final

  35 (10.4%)

V-late

151 (45.1%)

[in that V-final]

[103 (30.7%)]

Total

335

ambiguous

V-final rule

V-2 clauses, represented by (18), are less common, about 11%. The ellipted version of V-2, V-1 clauses with null subjects, shows a similar frequency. They are exemplified by (19). Ambiguous clauses are also relatively frequent. On the other hand, V-1 clauses with an overt subject are marginal, numbering only three examples. (Bede, cl. 87) (17) ne scypene his neatum ne timbreþ nor stalls his animals-DAT not builds   ‘Nor builds stalls for his cattle’

246 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(18) & hi wæron sona deade (Bede, cl. 508) and they were soon dead   ‘And they were soon dead’ (19) & com on Breotone and came-3SG into Britain ‘And he came to Britain’

(Bede, cl. 762)



On the whole, the number of clauses unambiguously consistent with the V-2 rule is less than 22%, while clauses unambiguously confirming the V-final rule make up nearly half of all the conjunct clauses in the text. They do not, however, form a majority, due to the large share of ambiguous clauses. Nonetheless, the data from Bede provide some support for the influence of the V-final rule on the order of conjunct clauses. A comparison of conjunct clauses in Bede to non-conjunct main declaratives shows obvious quantitative differences. The frequency of the V-late pattern described in Chapter 3 is not as high as in conjunct clauses. However, there are qualitative similarities. The V-late patterns observed in non-conjunct main declaratives in Bede include the use of heavy intervening phrases, which is also common in conjunct clauses. Among the 103 V-final clauses, there are 13 uninverted nominal subjects and as many as 39 clauses have heavy phrases between S and V. It is also possible to have several ‘intervening’ phrases, as in (20). (20) & he heo to gefeohte forð gecegde (Bede, cl. 703) and he them to fight forth called   ‘And he exhorted them to fight’

Luke: With Table 4, we turn to the last OE text, Luke. Table 4.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Luke. true V-1

   5 (1.2%)

neither rule

V-1 with no overt S

  88 (21.7%)

V-2 rule

V-2

126 (31.1%)

V-1-final

  43 (10.6%)

V-2 with no overt S

   5 (1.2%)

V-2-final

  65 (16.0%)

V-late

  73 (18.0%)

[in that V-final]

  [62 (15.3%)]

Total

405

ambiguous

V-final rule



Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 247

Unambiguous V-2 clauses, represented by (21), are the largest group. The second most numerous category are V-1 clauses with null subjects, like (22). Apart from that, unambiguous V-final clauses, such as (23), as well as two types of short ambiguous clauses are also fairly well represented, while V-1 clauses with an overt subject are marginal. (21) And manega licþroweras wæron on Israhel under Heliseo and many lepers were in Israel under Eliseus þam witegan (Luke, cl. 563) the prophet   ‘And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet’  (Lk 4:27)

into Zacharias huse (Luke, cl. 123) (22) & eode and went-3SG into Zachary’s house   ‘And she entered into the house of Zachary’  (Lk 1:40) (23) & hig hyne for hyre bædon (Luke, cl. 604) and they him for her asked   ‘And they besought him for her’  (Lk 4:38)

In short, there is no doubt that the V-2 rule has much better support in the data from Luke; 53% of clauses are consistent with the rule. The V-final rule falls far behind, being represented by only 18% of the clauses, and is surpassed by ambiguous clauses, which account for 28%. What is more, V-2 conjunct clauses from Luke seem to resemble V-2 nonconjunct clauses qualitatively because of the availability of S-V inversion. (21) is of course a V-2 clause, but it is also S-V. Out of 126 V-2 conjunct clauses, 19 show S-V inversion at work, as in (24). However, it must be borne in mind that in nonconjunct clauses from Luke, inversion is much more frequent. (24) And on hyra gesamnunge wæs sum man (Luke, cl. 577) and on their synagogue was some man   ‘And in the synagogue there was a man’  (Lk 4:33)

Within V-late conjunct clauses, we find 21 V-final clauses showing atypical patterns like heavy phrases (mostly noun phrases) intervening between S and V, as in (25). There are only 9 uninverted subjects, and 4 of them are nominal, cf. (26). (25) And þeos ðære tide becumende drihtne and this-F that time-DAT coming lord-DAT andette (Luke, cl. 333–334) confessed   ‘And she, at the same hour, coming in, confessed to the Lord’  (Lk 2:38)

248 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(26) & him ege onhreas (Luke, cl. 30) and him fear took   ‘And fear fell upon him’  (Lk 1:12)

In sum, the order of conjunct clauses in the OE translations is very inconsistent. In Genesis and Luke, the V-2 patterns are predominant, though the frequency of strictly V-final conjunct clauses is higher in Luke than in Genesis. Nonetheless, it may be concluded that both texts seem to contradict the traditional view of the element order of OE conjunct clauses. However, in Bede, the V-late order is most frequent, and the proportion of strictly V-final clauses is much higher than in the OE biblical translations. Thus, Bede is the only OE text in which the presence of the V-final rule in conjunct clauses may be observed. Tatian: Moving on to the OHG translations, let us first consider Table  5, which shows that in Tatian, the two most frequent orders are V-1 clauses with null subjects (over 36%) and unambiguous V-2 clauses (over 20%), as in (27) and (28) respectively. Table 5.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Tatian. true V-1

  54 (12.6%)

neither rule

V-1 with no overt S

155 (36.2%)

V-2 rule

V-2

  88 (20.6%)

V-1-final

  56 (13.1%)

V-2 with no overt S

  13 (3.0%)

V-2-final

  39 (9.1%)

V-late

  23 (5.4%)

[in that V-final]

  [9 (2.1%)]

Total

428

ambiguous

V-final rule

V-1 clauses with an overt subject are also relatively frequent (ca. 13%), as shown in (29). (27) inti batun ín (Tatian, cl. 2154) and asked-3PL him   ‘And they besought him’  (Mt 8:34) (Tatian, cl. 2723) (28) inti niouuiht ni terit íu and nothing not hurts you-PL   ‘And nothing shall hurt you’  (Lk 10:19)



Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 249

(29) inti gibit imo truhtin sedal Dauides sines fater (Tatian, cl.111) and gives him lord throne David’s his father’s   ‘And the Lord shall give him the throne of David his father’  (Lk 1:32)

Short structurally ambiguous clauses are also quite frequent in Tatian (ca. 22% altogether), while the least numerous group are V-late clauses, illustrated by (30). The V-final rule is definitely not at work in Tatian; only ca. 5% of the clauses are consistent with it. (30) inti ubil man fon ubilemo bringit ubil (Tatian, cl. 1659) and evil man from evil brings evil   ‘And an evil man out of an evil [treasure] brings forth evil things’  (Mt 12:35)

All in all, V-2, which is expected in OHG conjunct clauses, is found in Tatian in ca. 57% of all cases. What is more, among the 88 V-2 conjunct clauses, there are 19 cases of S-V inversion, as in (31). This confirms that the V-2 rule is fully operative in this group of clauses. (31) inti só uuirdit siu heil (Tatian, cl. 2448) and so is she safe   ‘And she shall be safe’  (Lk 8:50)

As far as the V-final order is concerned, infrequent as they are, clauses following it feature isolated cases of heavy intervening phrases and uninverted nominal subjects, as in (32) and (33) respectively. (32) inti manage in sinero giburti mendent (Tatian, cl. 48) and many in his birth rejoice   ‘And many shall rejoice in his birth’  (Lk 1:14) (33) inti in sinemo namen thiota gitruuuent (Tatian, cl. 2883) and in his name people hope   ‘And in his name people shall hope’  (Mt 12:21)

Nonetheless, it should also be noted that the use of the V-late pattern in Tatian is strongly influenced by the source text, cf. section 6.7. Isidor: In the OHG Isidor, illustrated in Table 6, the dominant order is unambiguous V-2, as in (34), while V-1 clauses without an overt subject are exceptionally infrequent; an example of this marginal pattern is provided in (35).

250 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Isidor. true V-1

  14 (12.2%)

neither rule

V-1 with no overt S

   9 (7.8%)

V-2 rule

V-2

  55 (47.8%)

V-1-final

   2 (1.7%)

V-2 with no overt S

   8 (7.0%)

V-2-final

   8 (7.0%)

V-late

  19 (16.5%)

[in that V-final]

[12 (10.4%)]

Total

115

ambiguous

V-final rule

(Isidor, cl. 353) (34) endi mn zesuua uuas mezssendi himila and my right was measuring heavens   ‘And my right hand was measuring heavens’ (35) endi chistiftu imu sn riihhi (Isidor, cl.704) and establish-1SG him his kingdom   ‘And I shall establish his kingdom for him’

True V-1 clauses, as in (36), constitute ca. 12% of all conjuncts. Structurally ambiguous clauses are relatively infrequent, especially the short V-1-final clauses (this is probably due to the fact that most clauses in Isidor are in general rather long). V-late clauses (which are mostly V-final), as exemplified by (37), are not very numerous. (36) Oh schameen sih nu dhea aerlosun (Isidor, cl.445) and shame-3PL REFL now the heathens   ‘And then the heathens are ashamed’ (37) Oh sie dhanne quhedant (Isidor, cl.490) and they then say   ‘And then they say’

On the whole, V-2 is unambiguously present in ca. 60% of all conjunct clauses in Isidor. Among the 55 V-2 conjuncts in Isidor, there are as many as 22 cases of S-V inversion, cf. (38). This shows that in Isidor, the presence of a co-ordinating conjunction does not have much influence on the order of main clauses, which follow the V-2 rule rather consistently. (38) Endi arslagan uuirdit christ (Isidor, cl.530) and killed was christ   ‘And Christ was killed’

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 251



Nonetheless, we do find some patterns which are clear violations of the V-2 rule, such as uninverted nominal subjects and heavy phrases intervening between S and V, as in (39). This is found in 5 out of 12 V-final clauses. (39) Endi dhoh eina guotliihhin dhera dhrinissa syrafin and yet one glory the trinity’s seraphim-PL mit dhemu dhrifaldin quhide meinidon (Isidor, cl. 403) with the threefold cry meant   ‘And the Seraphim expressed the glory of the Holy Trinity by crying three times’

Physiologus: In Physiologus, shown in Table 7, only 4 of the patterns distinguished for conjunct clauses are attested. V-1 without an overt subject, as in (40), is clearly the dominant order. Table 7.  Element order in conjunct clauses in Physiologus. true V-1

  2 (5.0%)

neither rule

V-1 with no overt S

30 (75.0%)

V-2 rule

V-2

  6 (15.0%)

V-1-final

  2 (5.0%)

Total

40

ambiguous

The next most frequent pattern, unambiguous V-2, also follows the V-2 rule, cf. (41). The only order which does not conform to the V-2 constraint is V-1 with an overt subject, found in 2 clauses, as in (42). (40) unde spilit mit iro (Phys., cl. 86) and plays with her   ‘And it plays with her’ (41) Unde der dracho uuiret so uordtal (Phys., cl. 53) and the dragon is so cunning   ‘And the dragon is so cunning’ (42) unde uerit siu gesunt uz (Phys., cl. 106) and goes she healthy out   ‘And she goes out safely’

In 4 out of 6 V-2 clauses, there is S-V inversion, as in (43). (Phys., cl. 137) (43) unde durih daz ist ez uile unreine and through that is it very impure   ‘And because of that it is very impure’

252 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

It is noteworthy that Physiologus turns out to be very consistent in its element order in main clauses: all non-conjunct clauses are V-2 (see Chapter 3), while most conjunct clauses are either V-2 (though mostly with no overt subject present) or – infrequently – they feature the V-1 order. In such a situation, one might claim that in clauses like (42) unde functions as an adverb triggering S-V inversion, so these clauses are also consistent with the V-2 rule. Such an analysis is not generally accepted though, as reported in section 6.1.3, and it is reasonable to question it considering how often unde fails to cause inversion, cf. (41) and (42). To sum up the situation in the OHG texts, we may conclude that OHG conjunct clauses mostly follow the V-2 rule, which is an expected result considering the fact that most descriptions of OHG syntax do not differentiate between conjunct and non-conjunct main declarative clauses. The frequency of V-late is rather low in Tatian and Isidor, while in Physiologus the pattern is not attested. However, there is an alternative to the V-2 order used in all the OHG translations, and that is the V-1 pattern. Table 8.  Consistence of element order with V-2 and V-final rules. Text

consistent with V-2 rule

consistent with V-final rule

true V-1

ambiguous

Total

Genesis

277 (61.8%)

  80 (17.9%)

6 (1.3%)

  84 (18.8%)

447

Bede

  72 (21.5%)

151 (45.1%)

3 (0.9%)

109 (32.5%)

335

Luke

214 (52.8%)

  73 (18.0%)

5 (1.2%)

113 (27.9%)

405

Tatian

243 (56.8%)

23 (5.4%)

54 (12.6%)

108 (25.2%)

428

Isidor

  64 (55.6%)

  19 (16.5%)

14 (12.2%)

  18 (15.6%)

115

Physiologus

  36 (90.0%)

0 (0%)

2 (5.0%)

  2 (5.0%)

  40

Table 8 sums up the data for all the translations, and it is evident that all the texts apart from Bede follow the V-2 rule in conjunct clauses, orders consistent with this rule making up more than half of the clauses in all the texts. Thus, with one text as an exception, we notice clear parallels between the two languages. As far as the OE translations are concerned, Bede clearly stands out in being more consistently V-late. One obvious possibility is that the order in Bede might be affected by the order of the Latin original. Another possible explanation is that the differences between the OE texts reflect diachronic changes, with the V-final rule being still perceptible in Bede, but not in the two later texts. In the case of OHG, V-late is very rare in Tatian and not attested at all in Physiologus, while the frequency of this particular order in Isidor is similar to that in Genesis and Luke. However, it is quite striking that in non-conjunct main



Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 253

clauses, the V-late order is also absent from Physiologus and more frequent in Isidor than in Tatian (32% vs. 14%, cf. Table 2 in Chapter 3). Therefore, conjunct and non-conjunct declarative clauses in OHG come across as very similar as far as variation between V-2 and V-late is concerned. Finally, we have to note the systematic difference between OE and OHG with regard to the V-1 order. V-1 conjunct clauses with an overt subject are extremely marginal in OE (ca. 1% in all the texts), but in OHG, they have a frequency of more than 12% in Tatian and Isidor. What is more, there are two clauses showing this order in Physiologus, which is naturally a very low number, but it is worth noting that in spite of the small sample we get from this text, true V-1 order is attested while V-late is completely absent. Thus, all the OHG texts show that V-1 conjunct clauses were a stable minority pattern in conjunct clauses in this language. 6.4 Co-referentiality of subjects in OE The purported association of the reference of the subject and the order of conjunct clauses in OE has been explained in section 6.1.2. It rests on the division of conjunct clauses according to the relation of the subject in a given clause (overtly expressed or not) to the subject of the preceding clause. The two may be the same, as in (1) above, or the conjunct clause may have a different subject as in the clause And nu þu… in (2). The former situation typically means a closer discourse link between the two clauses. Referential identity between the subjects of the given conjunct clause and the preceding clause is supposed to favour the use of the V-final order. In order to investigate this issue, we have divided our OE data into same-subject clauses and different-subject clauses. There is one complication in this, shown by (44). In this example, the conjunct clause with the verb cwæð has a different subject from the immediately preceding clause, but this clause is subordinate. It is the main clause (with the verb gestrynde) that is co-ordinated with the analysed conjunct clause, and the subject Adam is shared by the two. (44) Eft Adam gestrynde sunu ðone he nemde Seth, & ðus also Adam begot son whom he named Seth and thus cwæð (Genesis, cl. 380–382) said   ‘Again Adam begot a son whom he called Seth, and said thus’  (Gen 4:25)

Because it is not clear how to treat such clauses, we decided to keep them as a separate category. The logical criterion of co-referentiality is met in such cases, but it is not clear to what extent the intervening clause might be disruptive and affect the choice of element order.

254 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Genesis: The results9 for Genesis are presented in Table 9. Table 9.  Element order in same-subject and different-subject clauses in Genesis. Order

same S

same S with intervening clause(s)

different S

V-2 consistent

121 (59.6%)

40 (72.7%)

116 (61.3%)

V-F consistent

23 (11.3%)

9 (16.4%)

48 (25.4%)

true V-1 ambiguous Total

0 (0%) 59 (29.1%) 203

0 (0%) 6 (10.9%) 55

6 (3.2%) 19 (10.0%) 189

If we compare same-S clauses and different-S clauses, the most notable change concerns the proportion of ambiguous patterns, which are much more common (29% vs. 10%) when the subjects are co-referential, cf. (45). This, however, comes as no surprise. It is quite natural that ambiguous clauses, which are short and closely linked to the preceding clause, will also share the subject. In particular, V-1 final clauses like & hloh shown in (45) can only exceptionally not be co-referential (Allen 1995: 51–52). (45) Þa feol Abraham on cneowum & hloh (Genesis, cl. 1083–1084) then fell Abraham on knees and laughed   ‘Then Abraham fell to his knees, and laughed’  (Gen 17:17)

What is more interesting is the relationship between the percentages of clauses unambiguously consistent with the V-2 and the V-final rule for same-S and differentS clauses. In same-S clauses, we have more clauses representing V-2, as in (46); they are more than 5 times more frequent than clauses showing patterns consistent with V-final (60% vs. 11%). This can hardly be reconciled with the claims found in Traugott (1992); we do not observe any tendency for the V-final (or V-late) order to underscore the continuity of the subject. (46) hi fundon ænne feld on Senaarlande, & wunodon they found a plain on Senaar land and lived ðæron (Genesis, cl. 692–693) there   ‘They found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it’  (Gen 11:2)

9.  Section 6.3 operated on the more detailed division into eight element orders. From now on, we will base our analysis on the more generalised categories which are linked to the two rules that might operate in OE conjunct clauses. The relationship between the two levels of classification is shown in Table 1.

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 255



Different-S clauses showing V-2, like the one in (47), are more common than those showing V-final order, as in (48). Yet, the proportion is not so overwhelming as in same-S clauses; unambiguous V-2 is only about twice as common as V-final (60% vs. 26%). Thus, the data from Genesis not only contradict the putative link of coreferentiality and element order; they actually suggest a correlation in the opposite direction. In the case of co-referential subjects, the V-final rule is less likely to operate than in different-S clauses. (47) ic eom ðin wergend, & þin med byð I am your protector and your reward is swyðe mycel (Genesis, cl. 918–919) very big   ‘I am your protector, and your reward is exceeding great’  (Gen 15:1)

(48) & he ferde mid Gode, & hine nan man syððan ne and he went with God and him no man later not geseah (Genesis, cl. 421) saw   ‘And he walked with God, and was seen no more’  (Gen 5:24)



Bede: The data for Bede, presented in Table 10, show an increase in the frequency of ambiguous clauses in same-S clauses (similarly to Genesis, cf. (45) above). Table 10.  Element order in same-subject and different-subject clauses in Bede. Order

same S

same S with intervening clause(s)

different S

V-2 consistent

35 (18.2%)

8 (21.6%)

29 (27.4%)

V-F consistent

68 (35.4%)

19 (51.3%)

64 (60.4%)

true V-1 ambiguous Total

1 (0.5%) 88 (45.8%) 192

0 (0%) 10 (27.0%) 37

2 (1.9%) 11 (10.4%) 106

The effect, predictable as it is, is here much stronger; ambiguous clauses are actually the largest category when the subjects are co-referential. In the case of the unambiguous clauses, same-S clauses are mostly V-late (i.e. consistent with the V-final rule), cf. (49). Same-S clauses exhibiting V-2 only occur half as often. What is more, there is no fundamental difference between same-S and different-S clauses; here again, V-final is more common than V-2, though the dominance of V-final is stronger in different-S clauses, as in (50).

256 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(49) Ða æfter þon Claudius se casere, se wæs feorþa fram Agusto eft then after that Claudius the emperor who was fourth from Augustus again fyrde gelædde on Breotone, & þær butan hefegum gefeohte & blodgyte army led on Britain and there without serious fight or bloodshed mycelne dæl þæs landes on anweald onfeng (Bede, cl. 113–115) great part the land’s in power took   ‘After this the emperor Claudius, who was fourth from Augustus, again led an army into Britain, and there, without serious resistance or bloodshed, took possession of a great part of the country’

(50) In þisses monnes tid mod & mægen Brettas onfengon: & he heo in this man’s time heart and strength Britons recovered and he them to gefeohte forð gecegde (Bede, cl. 702–703) to fight forth called   ‘In his time the Britons recovered heart and strength, and he exhorted them to fight’



In short, there is a clear preference for the orders consistent with V-final in Bede, and this preference is stronger in different-S clauses than in same-S clauses. Therefore, the data from Bede do not confirm Traugott’s (1992) claim that in clauses with co-referential subjects the V-final order is more frequent: the exact opposite of this claim has been identified in the analysed sample. Luke: In Luke, illustrated in Table 11, ambiguous clauses are much more common when subjects are co-referential. Table 11.  Element order in same-subject and different-subject clauses in Luke. Order

same S

same S with intervening clause(s)

different S

V-2 consistent

102 (49.8%)

13 (61.9%)

99 (55.3%)

V-F consistent

23 (11.2%)

3 (14.3%)

47 (26.2%)

true V-1 ambiguous Total

1 (0.5%) 79 (38.5%) 205

0 (0%) 5 (23.8%) 21

4 (2.2%) 29 (15.2%) 179

In same-S clauses, clauses showing V-2, as in (51), are the largest group (almost 50%), whereas clauses consistent with the V-final rule are relatively infrequent (only 11%).



Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 257

(51) His modor & his gebroðru him to comun & hi ne mihton hine his mother and his brothers him to came and they not might him for þære menegu geneosian (Luke, cl. 1337–1338) for the crowd come to   ‘His mother and brothers came to him and they could not approach him for the crowd’  (Lk 8:19)

Turning to different-S clauses, we also see that V-2 is represented better than V-final; the relevant example is (52). V-late clauses are only half as frequent as those consistent with the V-2 rule. However, the proportion of clauses following the V-final rule is higher in different-S clauses than in same-S clauses. (52) Ða þohton hig þis word & hit wæs bewrigen then thought they this word and it was hidden beforan him (Luke, cl. 1715–1716) before them   ‘Then they thought this word and it was hidden from them’  (Lk 9:45)

The most important finding of the present analysis is that co-referentiality in OE conjunct clauses is connected with the V-2 rather than the V-final rule. In other words, conjunct clauses with co-referential subjects are not typically V-late except in Bede, but Bede generally uses this pattern in conjunct clauses more often than the other OE texts, regardless of the referential status of the subject. Moreover, in all the texts, same-S clauses follow the V-late patterns less frequently than different-S clauses, even in Bede, where the frequency of V-late is relatively high in all subtypes of conjunct clauses. We may repeat that this completely contradicts the common assumptions we started out with. Yet, the effect we have observed should not be overestimated. There are differences in the proportion of clauses with the V-2 rule and those showing the V-late order, but in none of the texts does subject reference alter the general picture. Genesis and Luke are V-2 in both same-S and different-S clauses, while Bede is more V-final than V-2 throughout. The figures from Tables 9-11 were also subjected to chi-square tests.10 The results showed a statistically significant difference between same-S and different-S clauses in Genesis and Luke, but not in Bede. In any case, however, we have found no support at all for a consistent correlation between co-referentiality and V-finality in OE conjunct clauses.

10.  For the test to be as clear as possible, we did not include all the data. Thus, we only took the figures for the two major categories (ignoring true V-1 clauses and ambiguous clauses). We also compared only the plain same-S clauses to the different-S ones.

258 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

6.5 Locative phrases in OE As quoted in section 6.1.2, Traugott (1992) mentions the presence of locative phrases as a factor making conjunct clauses in OE V-2 rather than V-final. This claim is linked to the traditional view that conjunct clauses in general tend to be V-final. Since our analysis has not confirmed the overall V-finality of conjuncts in OE (cf. section 6.3), the analysis of the effect that locative phrases might have on element order faces a conceptual problem. The version of the claim that we could investigate is that the presence of a locative phrase should strengthen the V-2 tendency in Genesis and Luke, and counteract the V-final tendency we have observed in Bede. In our analysis, we group all locative adverbials together. We assume that both adverbs and prepositional phrases can be expected to function in the same way with respect to element order. Genesis: In the first OE translation under scrutiny, Genesis, the proportion of conjunct clauses which follow the V-2 order is indeed higher when a locative phrase is present, as shown in Table 12. Table 12.  Influence of locative phrases on the order of conjuncts in Genesis. Order

with locative phrase

no locative phrase

V-2 consistent

85 (78.0%)

192 (56.8%)

V-F consistent

17 (15.6%)

63 (18.6%)

V-1

1 (0.9%)

5 (1.5%)

ambiguous

6 (5.5%)

78 (23.1%)

Total

109

338

In Genesis, conjunct clauses generally tend to be V-2 and clauses without a locative phrase mostly use patterns consistent with the V-2 rule as well; but when a locative phrase is present, the proportion of V-2 clauses rises to almost 78%, as in (53). Changing the perspective, 85 out of 277 clauses (ca. 31%) which are consistent with the V-2 rule contain a locative phrase. (53) & heora geferan flugon afyrhte to muntum (Genesis, cl. 869) and their companions fled afraid to mountains   ‘And their companions fled afraid to the mountains’  (Gen 14:10)

Interestingly, the proportion of V-final is similar in both groups of clauses (ca. 16% vs. ca. 19%). However, a noticeable difference is that the lack of a locative phrase seriously increases the proportion of ambiguous clauses, as in (54). This is not particularly surprising since, given the shortness of most of these clauses, they are unlikely to include locative phrases. In the case of V-1 final clauses, it is impossible

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 259



by definition. Genuine V-1 order is equally rare in both groups, with only one such clause containing a locative phrase. (54) & hys swurd ateah (Genesis, cl. 1598) and his sword-ACC lifted-3SG   ‘And lifed his sword’  (Gen 22:10)

When we compare the percentages in Table 12, it is clear that the prevalence of V-2 is overwhelming when the clause contains a locative phrase, whereas the V-2 dominance is not so strong in the absence of a locative phrase. Thus, the data generally confirm the tendency described in the literature. However, the difference between the two groups of clauses is statistically significant only when ambiguous clauses are included in the test. Bede: The results for the next OE translation, Bede, are presented in Table 13. Table 13.  Influence of locative phrases on the order of conjuncts in Bede. Order

with locative phrase

no locative phrase

V-2 consistent

31 (35.6%)

41 (16.5%)

V-F consistent

42 (48.3%)

109 (43.9%)

V-1

0 (0%)

ambiguous

14 (16.1%)

Total

87

3 (1.2%) 95 (38.3%) 248

In general, Bede exhibits more V-late clauses than do the other texts. Thus, it is the perfect text for testing the role of locative phrases since these are associated with a minority pattern as assumed by Traugott (1992). In Bede, clauses with the V-late order are actually slightly more frequent when a locative phrase is present (48% vs. 44%), but this difference is largely due to the automatic change in the frequency of ambiguous clauses, cf. the discussion of (54) above. When clauses consistent with the V-2 rule are taken into consideration, the presence of a locative phrase does indeed increase their proportion, as in (55). Yet, they still remain a minority pattern. In clauses without a locative phrase, V-2 occurs even less frequently. Thus, Bede does demonstrate the link between the presence of locative phrases and the V-2 order. Yet, if we look at it from a different perspective, the role of locative phrases is limited. Out of 67 clauses showing V-2 in Bede, only 31 (ca. 46%) contain a locative phrase, so this is certainly not the only factor involved here. What is more, the difference between the two groups of conjunct clauses is not statistically significant when ambiguous clauses are excluded from the test.

260 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(55) & her beoð swyþe genihtsume weolocas (Bede, cl. 14) and here are very abundant shellfish   ‘And there is an abundance of shellfish here’

Luke: In Luke, shown in Table 14, as many as 75% of conjuncts with a locative phrase follow the V-2 rule, as in (56), while the proportion of V-2 in clauses without locative phrases is much lower. Table 14.  Influence of locative phrases on the order of conjuncts in Luke. Order

with locative phrase

no locative phrase

V-2 consistent

54 (75.0%)

160 (48.0%)

V-F consistent

13 (18.1%)

60 (18.0%)

V-1

0 (0%)

ambiguous

5 (6.9%)

Total

72

5 (1.5%) 108 (32.4%) 333

Within clauses consistent with the V-2 rule, 54 out of 215 (ca. 25%) contain a locative phrase. (Luke, cl. 1276) (56) And sum feoll ofer þæne stan and some fell over the stone   ‘And some fell upon a rock’  (Lk 8:6)

The proportion of clauses consistent with V-final is practically identical (ca. 18%) in both groups. We may add that the proportion of ambiguous clauses is very low among clauses containing a locative phrase, whereas the three ambiguous orders account for as many as 32% of clauses without a locative phrase. Again, the difference between the clauses is statistically significant only when ambiguous clauses are taken into consideration. In general, we observe that all the OE translations from our study corpus display similar behaviour with respect to the influence of locative phrases on the order of conjunct clauses. In all the OE texts, a positive link between the V-2 order and the presence of locative phrases in the clause can be established. However, the effect is rather weak. In Genesis and Luke, V-2 dominates anyway and in Bede (where this is not the case), most V-2 clauses do not contain a locative phrase. What is more, clauses with and without locative phrases differ mostly in the relative frequency of ambiguous patterns. Thus, our analysis does not confirm Traugott’s (1992) claim on a more general level. Locative phrases are not the chief factor that accounts for the V-2 order (and its variations) in OE conjunct clauses.

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 261



6.6 Type of verb in OHG This section differs from the preceding ones in the treatment of the element order patterns. The hypothesised link we are researching is that the V-1 order in conjunct clauses is restricted to specific verb types, mainly mutative verbs (verbs of change including motion verbs), verbs of saying, being and becoming, negated verbs and auxiliary verbs, mostly passive auxiliaries (Axel 2007: 128–129). Axel’s text explicitly mentions ‘inti + V’ in this context, but it is not clear whether she means all clauses that have such a sequence (surface V-1) or only the true V-1 order (i.e. with an overt subject after the verb). In our analysis, we distinguish the different patterns which start with the sequence ‘coordinating conjunction + V’, i.e. true V-1 order, surface V-1 with no overt subject, as well as short V-1 final clauses, and group all the other categories together. Tatian: Table 15 shows the frequency of occurrence of specific verb types in the analysed patterns in Tatian. Table 15.  Proportion of different verb types in V-1 vs. other patterns in Tatian. Order

saying

mutative

being

auxiliary

negated

other

total

V-1 with null S

  41 (26.5%)

28 (18.1%)

 3 (1.9%)

13 (8.4%)

5 (3.2%)

65 (41.9%)

155

true V-1

 5 (9.3%)

23 (42.6%)

   8 (14.8%)

 2 (3.7%)

3 (5.6%)

13 (24.1%)

  54

V-1 final

  27 (48.2%)

 7 (12.5%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 9 (16.1%)

13 (23.2%)

  56

other

16 (9.8%)

17 (10.4%)

  25 (15.3%)

  22 (13.5%)

22 (13.5%)

61 (37.4%)

163

In V-1 clauses with null subjects, verbs of saying are the most frequent category. It is noteworthy that 27 out of 41 such clauses all follow the same pattern: inti + quad / quadun (zi) imo / in / iru, as in (57), i.e. they function as a recurrent quotation formula throughout the text. In addition, verbs of saying are even more frequent in short V-1 clauses consisting of the conjunction and the verb only, where 24 out of 27 clauses have the same form: inti quad / quadun.11 11.  This suggests that the reason why verbs of saying are so underrepresented in non-conjunct V-1 clauses with overt subjects in Tatian, as discussed in Chapter 4 (cf. Table 2 in Chapter 4 and Table 15 in the present chapter), is that in this book conjunct and non-conjunct declarative clauses are discussed separately, whereas in most studies devoted to OHG (e.g. Axel 2007) the two groups of clauses are not distinguished. This points to an interesting correlation between the presence of a conjunction and the frequency of verbs of saying in V-1 clauses, which has not been identified in other studies.

262 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(57) inti quad imo (Tatian, cl. 819) and said him   ‘And said to him’  (Mt 4:6)

Mutative verbs are also quite well represented in this pattern; other categories have visibly lower frequencies. What is more, almost 42% of V-1 clauses with null subjects contain verbs which could not be classified as belonging to the specified categories typical of V-1. In V-1 clauses with overt subjects, the proportion of other verbs is much lower; mutative verbs are by far the most frequently used verb type, as in (58); this finding is comparable to the results obtained for non-conjunct V-1 declarative clauses with overt subjects in Tatian, where mutative verbs are also the best represented category (cf. Table 2 in Chapter 4). (58) inti nidarsteic regan (Tatian, cl. 1683) and fell rain   ‘And the rain fell’  (Mt 7:25)

When we reverse the proportions, it becomes clear that the only verb types which are used mostly in V-1 patterns in Tatian are verbs of saying and mutative verbs (and, rather surprisingly, a number of other verbs, though they appear mostly in V-1 clauses with null subjects); 56% of negated verbs, 69% of verbs of being and 59% of auxiliary verbs appear in other patterns in conjunct clauses, as in (59). (59) Inti uuort uuard fleisc gitan (Tatian, cl. 646) and word was flesh made   ‘And the Word was made flesh’  (Jn 1:14)

Isidor: The data for the OHG Isidor translation are shown in Table 16. Table 16.  Proportion of different verb types in V-1 vs. other patterns in Isidor. Order

saying

mutative

being

auxiliary

negated

other

total

V-1 with null S

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

   1 (11.1%)

 8 (88.9%)

 9

true V-1

 1 (7.1%)

   4 (28.6%)

   4 (28.6%)

   2 (14.3%)

0 (0%)

 3 (21.4%)

14

V-1 final

   1 (50.0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 1 (50.0%)

 2

other

 8 (8.9%)

  11 (12.2%)

  17 (18.9%)

  14 (15.6%)

 6 (6.7%)

34 (37.8%)

90

First of all, it has to be noted that in Isidor, some verb types are relatively infrequent in conjunct clauses because of the limited length of the text. Turning to the

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 263



particular patterns, it is impossible to find any regularities related to verb type in V-1 clauses without overt subjects and short V-1 final clauses (these patterns are in general very rare in Isidor). In true V-1 clauses, all verb types typical of V-1 are represented, as in (60), which features an auxiliary verb (uuerdan ‘become’); however, the low numbers allow only for a qualitative analysis and preclude any meaningful comparison with the equally scarce results presented in Chapter 4 on non-conjunct V-1 clauses. (60) Endi uuardh uuordan druhtines uuort (Isidor, cl. 693) and was made lord’s word   ‘And the word of God was made’

Physiologus: In Physiologus, as shown in Table 17, the numbers are also low, but all of the analysed verb types, except for verbs of saying, are found in at least one V-1 pattern. Table 17.  Proportion of different verb types in V-1 vs. other patterns in Physiologus. Order

saying

mutative

being

auxiliary

negated

other

total

V-1 with null S

0 (0%)

   4 (13.3%)

   9 (30.0%)

0 (0%)

 2 (6.7%)

15 (50.0%)

30

true V-1

0 (0%)

   1 (50.0%)

0 (0%)

   1 (50.0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 2

V-1 final

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

   2 (100%)

 2

other

0 (0%)

   1 (16.7%)

   2 (33.3%)

   1 (16.7%)

0 (0%)

   2 (33.3%)

 6

V-1 clauses without an overt subject mostly contain other verbs, including transitive verbs, as in (61), but verbs typical of the V-1 pattern, such as in (62), are also relatively well represented. (61) unde slehet ez (Phys., cl. 201) and kills it   ‘And he kills it’ (62) unde slafæt trie taga (Phys., cl. 45) and sleeps three days   ‘And it sleeps for three days’

It is difficult to generalise about true V-1 conjunct clauses since there are only 2 of them in this translation, but one has an auxiliary verb and the other has a motion verb, both typical of the V-1 pattern, cf. (63) and (64) respectively.

264 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(63) vnde uuard daz sar so offenlihin gehorit and was that immediately after clearly heard uber alle disa uuerilt (Phys., cl. 71) over all this world   ‘And soon afterwards it became clearly heard all over the world’

(64) unde uerit siu gesunt uz (Phys., cl. 106) and goes she healthy out   ‘And she goes out alive’

On the whole, it seems that there may be a correlation between the semantic type of the verb and the use of the V-1 order in OHG conjunct clauses; at least in Tatian, where the numbers of clauses representing various categories are high enough to allow for generalisations. The picture is blurred by Latin influence (cf. section 6.7) and the different frequency of particular verb types in the particular texts. It may be concluded that OHG conjunct clauses following the V-1 pattern feature verbs which appear in the same pattern in non-conjunct clauses (though not always with similar frequencies), which is another argument supporting the claim that the presence of a conjunction has no influence on the order of main declarative clauses in OHG. 6.7 Relation to Latin In this section, we look directly at the relationship between conjunct clauses in the analysed OE and OHG texts, and the corresponding clauses in the Latin source texts. As in the other chapters, we present the general division of the analysed clauses into those following and those modifying Latin. In the present chapter, we use the position of the (finite) verb as the criterion distinguishing the two groups (for details concerning element order classification across the chapters cf. section 2.7). Within clauses classified as following Latin, we distinguish: a) exact copies (phrase by phrase translations), b) clauses where the only modification is the addition of an overt subject, and c) other ‘minor modifications’, which include reordering of some elements in a clause, but with the verb retained in the same position as in the source text, as well as changes from a non-finite to a finite clause, but with the position of the verb unchanged. Clauses modifying Latin include: a) relatively close translations, but with a modified position of the finite verb, b) clauses where the verb is expressed in the translation, while in the source clause there is no verb form because of ellipsis, c) cases of elaboration (when the source clause is an ambiguous short clause, to

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 265



which the translator added elements, turning it into a longer clause, unambiguously following a given element order pattern), and d) free translations, i.e. clauses which are heavily paraphrased and clauses without clear sources. What is more, even though we do present the proportion of ambiguous clauses following and modifying Latin in the following tables, we do not focus on this category in the analysis. It is not very informative from the point of view of our study, which aims to analyse the relative importance of V-2 and V-final as two rules operative in conjunct clauses in the selected translations. Ambiguous clauses are mostly short, and they are indeed modelled on the Latin in many cases, but this fact does not allow us to draw more far-reaching conclusions. Therefore, these clauses are not included in the following discussion. Genesis: Tables 18 and 19 show that in the OE Genesis translation, clauses consistent with the V-2 rule follow Latin much more often than clauses consistent with the V-final rule. In the former case, ca. 32% are exact copies of the original, as in (65). Table 18.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Genesis. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

following V-2 rule

151 (54.5%)

126 (45.5%)

277

following V-final rule

  13 (16.2%)

  67 (83.7%)

  80

true V-1

  6 (100%)

0 (0%)

   6

ambiguous

52 (61.9%)

  32 (38.1%)

  84

Table 19.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Genesis. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V position

Added Elaboration V

Free translation

V-2 rule

  90 (32.5%)

42 (15.2%)

19 (6.9%)

  78 (28.2%)

 5 (1.8%)

 1 (0.4%)

  42 (15.2%)

V-final rule

 5 (6.3%)

7 (8.8%)

 1 (1.3%)

  47 (58.8%)

 2 (2.5%)

0 (0%)

  18 (22.5%)

true V-1

0 (0%)

 1 (16.7%)

   5 (83.3%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

All in all, clauses following the Latin constitute over 54% of V-2 conjuncts in the OE Genesis. In the group of clauses that modify the original order, the most frequent modification is a change of the verb position, as in (66).

266 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(65) & cwæð to þam cnihte (OE Genesis, cl. 1707) and said-3SG to the servant   et ait ad puerum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 2250) and said-3SG to servant   ‘And he said to the servant’  (Gen 24:65)

(66) & cyningas cumaþ of ðe (OE Genesis, cl. 1054) and kings come of you-SG   regesque ex te egredientur (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1259) kings-and of you-SG come-FUT   ‘And kings shall come out of you’  (Gen 17:6)

Clauses consistent with the V-final rule, even though they are relatively infrequent in Genesis, turn out to be quite independent of the source text; ca. 59% of them change the verb position, as in (67). (67) & Drihten him cwæð to (OE Genesis, cl. 1403) and Lord him said to   dixitque ad eum Deus (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1666) said-and to him God   ‘And God said to him’  (Gen 20:6)

On the contrary, V-1 conjunct clauses with an overt subject, infrequent as they are, follow Latin quite closely, though only 1 of them shown in (68) has the finite verb form in the initial position in the source text. In the case of the remaining 5 clauses (classified as minor modifications), the Latin source clauses have a complex verb phrase in which the clause-initial non-finite verb is directly followed by the finite form, as in (69). Even though the OE clauses are not copies of the source text, it is difficult to claim that the verb was placed in the OE translation completely independently of the original. The verb phrase standing at the beginning of the Latin source clause was probably an inspiration for the V-1 pattern used in OE. (68) & ferde swylce an ofen eal smociende (OE Genesis, cl. 970–971) and came also a furnace all smoking   et apparuit clibanus fumans (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1167) and appeared furnace smoking   ‘And there came a smoking furnace’  (Gen 15:17)

(69) & wæron ða gefyllede ealle his dagas and were then fulfilled all his days nygonhund geara & fiftig geara (Lat. Genesis, cl. 746) nine hundred years and fifty years  

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 267



et impleti sunt omnes dies eius and fulfilled are all days his nongentorum quinquaginta annorum (OE Genesis, cl. 684) nine hundred fifty years   ‘And all his days were in the whole nine hundred and fifty years’  (Gen 9:29)

On the whole, it must be stated that the only patterns which are used in the Genesis translation in a clearly independent way are those which conform to the V-final rule, while clauses exhibiting V-2 and (especially) V-1 to a great extent correspond to the original order. Thus, it would seem that the Latin does play a role in diminishing the proportion of patterns consistent with the V-final rule; it seems that the surprisingly low frequency of V-late conjunct clauses in Genesis may be a direct result of source text influence. Bede: At first glance, Bede seems to be relatively independent in its element order in conjunct clauses, cf. Tables 20 and 21. Table 20.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Bede. Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

following V-2 rule

Order

20 (27.8%)

52 (72.2%)

  72

following V-final rule

56 (37.1%)

95 (62.9%)

151

V-1 order

  2 (66.7%)

  1 (33.3%)

   3

ambiguous

26 (23.8%)

83 (76.2%)

109

Table 21.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Bede. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V position

Added Elaboration V

Free translation

V-2 rule

 9 (12.5%)

 3 (4.2%)

   8 (11.1%)

  26 (36.1%)

 6 (8.3%)

0 (0%)

20 (27.8%)

V-final rule

27 (17.9%)

11 (7.3%)

  18 (11.9%)

  35 (23.2%)

 1 (0.7%)

 3 (2.0%)

56 (37.1%)

true V-1

 1 (33.3%)

   1 (33.3%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 1 (33.3%)

Change of the verb position may be observed in ca. 36% of clauses showing V-2, as in (70). There are also a substantial number of V-2 clauses which are rather freely translated, as in (71).

268 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(70) ac him eallum wæron eall gemæno (OE Bede, cl. 977) but them all-DAT were all common   sed erant eis omnia communia (Lat. Bede, cl. 1177) but were them all common   ‘But they had all things in common’

(71) & wæs unoferswiðendlic weorud, þa hi togædere geþeodde and was unconquerable host when they together joined wæron (OE Bede, cl. 617–618) were   quae praemissae adiuncta cohorti inuincibilem fecit which sent forward-DAT joined force-DAT invincible made exercitum (Lat. Bede, cl. 821–822) army   ‘And the host when united overpowered resistance’

In clauses following the V-final rule, which are – as we know – very frequent in Bede, the proportion of exact copies is slightly higher than in V-2 clauses, as in (72). Nonetheless, in the majority of V-late conjunct clauses (ca. 63%), the translation is independent of the source text. Free translation could be identified in ca. 37% of clauses, as in (73), where an absolute clause is changed into a finite main clause, while in 23%, the position of the finite verb was changed, as in (74). (72) Ond þa in usses Drihtnes Hælendes Cristes noman and these-ACC in our Lord Saviour Christ’s name gehalgode (OE Bede, cl. 1653) consecrated-3SG   et eam in nomine sancti Saluatoris Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi and them in name holy Saviour’s God’s and Lord our’s Jesus Christ’s sacrauit (Lat. Bede, cl. 1891) consecrated-3SG   ‘And he consecrated it in the name of our Lord and Saviour Christ’ (73) & him nænig wiðstod (OE Bede, cl. 666) and them no one withstood   nullo prohibente (Lat. Bede, cl. 883) no one-ABL restraining-ABL   ‘And now no one withstood them’ (74) & þær nænig mann for wintres cyle on sumera heg ne and there no man for winter’s cold in summer hay not maweþ (OE Bede, cl. 86) mows  



Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 269

nemo propter hiemem aut faena secet aestate (Lat. Bede, cl. 130) no one for winter either hay cuts summer-ABL   ‘No one there mows hay in the summer as a provision against winter’s cold’

Conjuncts following the V-1 order with an overt subject are relatively infrequent in every OE translation including Bede. In this text, 2 clauses follow the Latin, as in (75), but there is also 1 clause without a clear source, shown in (76). It comes from a complex sentence saying ‘Here finishes the first book and begins the second’; information structure seems to be an obvious explanation for the use of V-1 in this context. (75) & feollan cynelico getimbro & anlipie (OE Bede, cl. 672) and fell public buildings and private   Ruebant aedificia puplica simul et priuata (Lat. Bede, cl. 885) collapsed buildings public likewise and private   ‘Buildings both public and private collapsed’

(76)

& onginneð seo oðer (OE Bede, cl. 1713) and begins the other   [no clear source] ‘And begins the second [book]’

In short, the only clause category in Bede which appears to be influenced by Latin (at least to some extent) is V-late conjunct clauses, i.e. clauses following the V-final rule. It seems justified to assume that the heavily V-final source text increases the frequency of this order in Bede, serving as a direct model for element order in some conjunct clauses. Nevertheless, patterns consistent with the V-final rule are also used relatively independently in this translation, which may point to both direct and indirect translation effects in Bede. The translator may have applied the V-late order under the influence of the generally V-final Latin even in places where the original followed a different ordering. The alternative explanation would be that Bede exhibits the native OE tendency for the clause-final placement of verbs in conjunct clauses, and the source text only increases its frequency. Luke: In Luke, the proportions shown in Tables 22 and 23 resemble those for Genesis. V-2 clauses (just like ambiguous clauses) are mostly modelled on the Latin source text; almost 40% of them are exact copies, as in (77).

270 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 22.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Luke. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

following V-2 rule

145 (67.8%)

69 (32.2%)

214

following V-final rule

  16 (21.9%)

57 (78.1%)

  73

V-1 order

   3 (60.0%)

  2 (40.0%)

   5

ambiguous

  75 (66.4%)

38 (33.6%)

113

Table 23.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Luke. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V position

Added V

Elaboration

Free translation

V-2 rule

  85 (39.7%)

  37 (17.3%)

23 (10.7%)

  45 (21.0%)

9 (4.2%)

 2 (0.9%)

13 (6.1%)

V-final rule

 6 (8.2%)

   9 (12.3%)

1 (1.4%)

  54 (74.0%)

2 (2.7%)

0 (0%)

 1 (1.4%)

true V-1

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 3 (60.0%)

0 (0%)

 1 (20.0%)

0 (0%)

   1 (20.0%)

Nonetheless, modifications do occur. In 21% of clauses, the verb position is changed, as in (78). (77) & cwæþ to Marian his meder (OE Luke, cl. 322) and said-3SG to Mary his mother   et dixit ad Mariam matrem eius (Lat. Luke, cl. 326) and said-3SG to Mary mother his   ‘And said to Mary his mother’  (Lk 2:34)

(78) And þar wæs mycel heord swyna (OE Luke, cl. 1402) and there was great herd swine-GEN   erat autem ibi grex porcorum multorum (Lat. Luke, cl. 1507) was also there herd swine many-GEN   ‘And there was there a herd of many swine’  (Lk 8:32)

On the other hand, V-late clauses are mostly independent of the source text; in 74% of them, the original element order is modified, as in (79). (OE Luke, cl. 245) (79) & Godes beorhtnes him ymbescean and God’s brightness them around-shone   et claritas Dei circumfulsit illos (Lat. Luke, cl. 250) and brightness God’s surrounded them   ‘And the brightness of God shone around them’  (Lk 2:9)

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 271



Within V-1 clauses with an overt subject, 3 clauses were classified as following Latin because the initial position of the OE verb is modelled on a Latin clause in which a complex verb phrase occupies the first position, as in (80). In both independent uses, the verb is negated, as in (81). This is an important observation since negation also triggers the use of the V-1 pattern in Luke in non-conjunct main declarative clauses, and it is a phenomenon independent of the Latin source (see Chapter 4). (80) & wearð mycel smyltnes (OE Luke, cl. 1361) and became great calm   et facta est tranquillitas (Lat. Luke, cl. 1466) and made is calm   ‘And there was a calm’  (Lk 8:24)

(81) ne nis yfel treow (OE Luke, cl. 995) nor not-is evil tree   neque arbor mala (Lat. Luke, cl. 1080) nor tree evil   ‘Nor is a tree evil’  (Lk 6:43)



The conclusions to be drawn from the analysis of Luke are very similar to those drawn for our summary of Latin influence on the Genesis translation: the source text seems to limit the proportion of V-late clauses, which – when they do appear – are mostly independent of the original. Tatian: In Tatian, quite unsurprisingly, all orders depend on the Latin to a great extent, including ambiguous clauses, as shown in Tables 24 and 25. Table 24.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Tatian. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

following V-2 rule

205 (84.4%)

38 (15.6%)

243

following V-final rule

  19 (82.6%)

  4 (17.4%)

  23

V-1 order

  50 (92.6%)

4 (7.4%)

  54

ambiguous

102 (94.4%)

6 (5.6%)

108

272 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 25.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Tatian. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V ­position

Added V

Free ­translation

V-2 rule

179 (73.7%)

14 (5.8%)

12 (4.9%)

30 (12.3%)

 4 (1.6%)

 4 (1.6%)

V-final rule

  18 (78.3%)

 1 (4.3%)

0 (0%)

 3 (13.0%)

 1 (4.3%)

0 (0%)

true V-1

  49 (90.7%)

 1 (1.9%)

0 (0%)

3 (5.6%)

0 (0%)

 1 (1.9%)

In the group of clauses consistent with V-2, 74% copy the original order, as in (82). Among the infrequent modifications, there are 30 clauses in which the verb position is changed, as in (83); this shows that Tatian is not a word for word gloss, but its high dependence on the source text cannot be denied. (82) Inti forhta bifieng sie alle (OHG Tatian, cl. 2216) and astonishment took them all   Et stupor apprehendit omnes (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2176) and astonishment took all   ‘And all were astonished’  (Lk 5:26)

(83) inti biuuant inan mit tuochum (OHG Tatian, cl. 354) and wrapped-3SG him with cloths   et pannis eum involvit (Lat. Tatian, cl. 354) and cloths-ABL him wrapped-3SG   ‘And wrapped him up with cloth’  (Lk 2:7)

In V-late clauses, the dependence on the source text is exceptionally high. Out of 23 such clauses, 18 are exact copies, as in (84); the number of modifications is negligible. (84) inti suntige mán suntigen mannon íntlihent (OHG Tatian, cl. 1380) and sinners sinners-DAT lend   nam et peccatores peccatoribus fęnerant (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1362) for and sinners sinners-DAT lend   ‘For sinners also lend to sinners’  (Lk 6:34)

In the case of V-1 clauses, the degree of correspondence with the Latin source is even higher than in V-late clauses; over 90% of them are calques of the source clauses, as in (85).

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 273



(85) inti anastantent kind in iro eldiron (OHG Tatian, cl. 1777) and rise children against their parents   et insurgent filii in parentes (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1744) and rise children against parents   ‘And the children shall rise up against their parents’  (Mt 10:21)

On the whole, Tatian is very dependent on the original, as is only to be expected. The text seems to show the greatest freedom in clauses complying with the V-2 rule (this is not obvious when we compare percentages of clauses modifying Latin, but this order is most frequent in general; and there are also 38 clauses where V-2 is used independently of the original). This suggests that the V-2 order was most natural for the translators; however, the extreme dependence of Tatian on the source text in this group of clauses does blur the results. Isidor: Tables 26 and 27 show the degree of dependence of conjunct clauses on the source text in Isidor. Table 26.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Isidor. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Total

following V-2 rule

29 (45.3%)

35 (54.7%)

64

following V-final rule

  8 (42.1%)

11 (57.9%)

19

V-1 order

10 (71.4%)

  4 (28.6%)

14

ambiguous

  9 (50.0%)

  9 (50.0%)

18

Table 27.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Isidor. Order

Following Latin Copied order

Added S

Modifying Latin Minor change

Changed V position

Added V

Free translation

V-2 rule

18 (28.1%)    7 (10.9%)    4 (6.3%)

23 (35.9%)    7 (10.9%)

V-final rule

  4 (21.1%)    3 (15.8%)    1 (5.3%)

  7 (36.8%)

0 (0%)

   4 (21.1%)

true V-1

10 (71.4%)

  3 (21.4%)

   1 (7.1%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

  5 (7.8%)

We immediately notice that the only pattern which is considerably influenced by Latin is V-1. Only ca. 28% of V-2 clauses copy the original order, as in (86), while in 36% of cases, the verb position is changed, as in (87). (86) endi ano mih nist ander (OHG Isidor, cl. 417) and except me not-is other   et preter me non est alius (Lat. Isidor, cl. 504) and except me not is other   ‘And there is no other except me’

274 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(87) endi antfenc mannes liihhamun (OHG Isidor, cl. 567) and took-3SG man’s body   et corpus humanum adsumpsit (Lat. Isidor, cl. 651) and body human took   ‘And he took a human body’

Only a few of the generally infrequent V-late clauses copy the source text order; in 37% of clauses, the original verb position is modified, as in (88). (88) endi dhiu chiborgonun hort dhir ghibu (OHG Isidor, cl. 140) and the secret treasure you-SG.DAT give-1SG   et dabo tibi thesauros absconditos ... (Lat. Isidor, cl. 239) and give-1SG you-SG.DAT treasure hidden   ‘And I give you the secret treasure’

However, V-1 conjunct clauses copy the original order in 71% of cases, as in (89); this is a very high degree of correspondence for Isidor, which is generally quite independent of its source text. (89) endi arfullit inan gheist gotes forahtun (OHG Isidor, cl. 763) and filled him ghost god’s fear-DAT   et repleuit eum spiritus timoris domini (Lat. Isidor, cl. 842) and filled him ghost fear-DAT lord-GEN   ‘And the ghost filled him with the fear of God’

In short, the V-2 and V-late patterns observed in Isidor are to a great extent independent of the Latin both in conjunct and non-conjunct main declarative clauses.12 The only pattern whose frequency seems distorted by the source text is V-1 with an overt subject (again, both in conjunct and non-conjunct main clauses). Physiologus: In Physiologus, illustrated in Tables 28 and 29, the element order of conjunct clauses is to a considerable extent independent of the source text. Table 28.  Relation to Latin in conjunct clauses in Physiologus. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin 28 (77.8%)

Total

following V-2 rule

8 (22.2%)

36

following V-final rule

0 (–)

0 (–)

 0

V-1 order

0 (0.0%)

2 (100.0%)

 2

ambiguous

1 (50.0%)

1 (50.0%)

 2

12.  Cf. Chapter 3 where non-conjunct clauses from Tatian would use the V-late order mostly under the influence of the source text, while Isidor allowed for more freedom in its element order independently of the Latin.

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 275



Table 29.  Subdivision of conjunct clauses following and modifying Latin in Physiologus. Order

Following Latin

Modifying Latin

Copied order

Added S

Minor change

Changed V position

Added V

Free translation

V-2 rule

   5 (13.9%)

0 (0%)

   3 (8.3%)

6 (16.7%)

  3 (8.3%)

  19 (52.8%)

true V-1

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (100%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Within clauses following the V-2 rule, most are free translations of the original, as in (90). (OHG Phys., cl. 72) (90) unde uberuuand den drachin, den mihchelin tieuel the dragon the great devil   and defeats ‘And he defeats the dragon, the great devil’ in infernum religavit illum draconem magnum, into hell sends this dragon great generis humani maximum antiquum inimicum (Lat. Phys., cl. 73) species human greatest ancient enemy   ‘And he sends this great dragon into hell, the greatest ancient enemy of mankind’

V-1 clauses with an overt subject, infrequent as they are, are completely independent of the source text: in both cases, the verb position is changed, as in (91). (OHG Phys., cl. 106) (91) unde uerit siu gesunt uz and goes she healthy out   Hydrus autem exiet vivus de visceribus ejus (Lat. Phys., cl. 115) hydra then exits alive from inside his   ‘And the hydra goes out [of him] alive’

To conclude, as in the other chapters, it is impossible to claim that the source text has any discernible influence on the element order of Physiologus. As shown in the earlier part of this section, the degree and direction of influence of the Latin source texts on the order of conjunct clauses depends on the translation. Table 30 shows the distribution of element order categories in clauses modifying Latin in all the texts, while Table 31 deals with clauses following Latin.

276 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 30.  Rules of element order in clauses modifying Latin. Text

consistent consistent with V-2 rule with V-F rule

true V-1

ambiguous

Total

Genesis

126 (56.0%)

67 (29.8%)

0 (0%)

32 (14.2%)

225

Bede

  52 (22.5%)

95 (41.1%)

  1 (0.4%)

83 (35.9%)

231

Luke

  69 (41.6%)

57 (34.3%)

  2 (1.2%)

38 (22.9%)

166

Tatian

  38 (73.2%)

4 (7.7%)

  4 (7.7%)

  6 (11.5%)

  52

Isidor

  35 (59.3%)

11 (18.6%)

  4 (6.8%)

  9 (15.3%)

  59

Physiologus

  28 (90.3%)

0 (0.0%)

  2 (6.4%)

1 (3.2%)

  31

true V-1

ambiguous

Total

6 (2.7%)

52 (23.4%)

222

Table 31.  Rules of element order in clauses following Latin. Text Genesis

consistent consistent with V-2 rule with V-F rule 151 (68.0%)

13 (5.8%)

Bede

  20 (19.2%)

  56 (53.8%)

2 (1.9%)

  26 (25.0%)

104

Luke

145 (60.7%)

16 (6.7%)

3 (1.3%)

  75 (31.4%)

239

Tatian

205 (54.5%)

19 (5.0%)

50 (13.3%)

102 (27.1%)

376

Isidor

  29 (51.8%)

   8 (14.3%)

10 (17.8%)

   9 (16.1%)

  56

Physiologus

   8 (88.9%)

   0 (0.00%)

0 (0.0%)

   1 (11.1%)

   9

On the whole, OE conjunct clauses show considerable influence of the Latin source texts, which greatly alters the proportions of orders. This group of clauses is a good illustration of the importance of the source text in a syntactic study based on translations, and of the danger of adding up data from different texts. The analysis has not uncovered any tendency common to all the OE texts. Furthermore, the characteristics of the particular texts we provided in section 6.3. are weakened. As Table 30 shows, when we consider only the clauses modifying the Latin source, the figures for V-2 and V-final become more balanced than those in Table 8; the change being greatest in Luke. Conversely, in clauses following Latin (cf. Table 31), the tendencies noted earlier are clearly strengthened. Thus, the Latin texts do exert a noticeable influence on the element order of conjunct clauses in the analysed OE texts. What is more, while the clauses consistent with V-finality prove quite independent of the Latin in Genesis and Luke, this may not constitute evidence for a general rule of V-finality in these texts. A number of the Latin-independent clauses are like (79), and involve a pre-verbal pronoun in OE as a translation of a post-verbal one in Latin. Such clauses are examples of the quite well known V-late pattern, whose use is motivated by the lightness of the pronominal element. The



Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 277

clause-final position of the verb is then a side effect, while in Bede, the V-final rule seems fully operative and only partly strengthened by the source text. The OHG texts present a completely different picture. There are differences between the corresponding figures in Tables 30 and 31, but the general picture remains the same in each text: OHG conjunct clauses follow the V-2 rule. It is very interesting that we can still spot this similarity despite the fact that the individual OHG translations differ so much from each other. Tatian is a close translation (note that all the percentages for clauses following Latin in Table  24 are above 80%), while Physiologus is very independent. 6.8 Summary and conclusions The picture of element order in OE conjunct clauses is indeed ‘erratic’, to use Bean’s formulation (1983: 88). There are text-specific patterns (Genesis and Luke favour V-2 and Bede favours V-final), but in all the texts, both patterns are strongly supported by the Latin sources. Thus, conjunct clauses prove to be perhaps the most important example of Latin interference in all the OE data. Of all the clause categories analysed so far, conjunct clauses are, on average, the shortest ones. This is because we include clauses with null subjects. The translator is more likely to retain the source text order in a shorter clause than in a longer one since there are not so many options for altering the order in these clauses. However, the observed Latin influence cannot be reduced to this specific circumstance. Note that in our analysis, the shortest, structurally ambiguous clauses were counted separately, and that the influence of Latin was primarily discussed in the context of unambiguous clauses, which are longer. Obviously, we cannot really make a simple choice between V-2 and V-final and base a verdict on it. Yet, V-2 seems to have better support in the data and not because two texts seem to adhere to it as opposed to one that does not. In both Genesis and Luke, we observe S-V inversion. In Genesis, most of the clauses that are classified as following a putative V-final rule can be explained as expected divergences from V-2, caused by the regular pre-verbal placement of light pronominal elements. In Luke, this is less evident. V-finality in Bede is not overwhelming (the strictly V-final clauses are not a majority), and there is a sizable minority of clauses that seem to show V-2 (including inversion). On the whole, though, conjunct clauses in Bede are different from those in the two other texts. Whether or not this reflects a diachronic development in the language (as suggested by Traugott 1992) cannot be decided on the basis of our data, but we certainly cannot rule it out. We have also considered two additional factors that might influence the element order of conjunct clauses in the OE data. Our analysis confirms a link

278 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

between the use of the V-2 pattern and the presence of locative phrases; however, the link is not particularly strong and does not explain most of the order distribution. Concerning co-referentiality of subjects, our data show a consistent pattern that is opposite to the claims we have found in the literature. Co-referential subjects increase the frequency of V-2, and not V-final. This actually corresponds to the analysis of Bech (2014) and her explanations in terms of discourse structure. The situation in OHG is much clearer and hence needs less commentary. All the texts behave in a similar way and follow V-2 (with S-V inversion), which as Tables 30 and 31 above show, is independent of the Latin sources. Another feature observed in all the OHG texts is the non-marginal frequency of the V-1 pattern with an overt subject. These clauses are, however, mostly inspired by Latin models (although there are some independent examples). Thus, we can take a stand on the issue of OHG inti + V. Our analysis in section 6.7 shows that Latin influence is the major factor here, and not the semantic type of the verb. The following tables compare conjunct to non-conjunct declarative clauses. Table 32 is concerned with the incidence of the rigid V-final order, whereas Table 33 shows a broader perspective, i.e. the V-late order, which includes all clauses with a verb which is neither in the first nor in the second position. For the data to be comparable, only clauses with overt subjects are included in these calculations. The two types of clauses are very similar in all the texts except Bede, where the difference between conjunct and non-conjunct main clauses is evident. With regard to OE, we recall the claim made by Bech (2001a) and confirmed in her later work (Bech 2014) that most V-final main declarative clauses are conjunct clauses. As Table 32 shows, this is true in our data only in the case of Bede. In this text, there are 120 V-final main declarative clauses (with an overt subject) and a slight majority of them (62 clauses) are conjunct clauses. The claim is not confirmed in Genesis or Luke (or in any OHG text). This, again, proves the existence of textspecific patterns and the necessity for each OE text to be investigated separately. As in the other chapters, we now present a statistical analysis considering all the investigated factors together. For the purpose of generating decision trees, Latin element orders were grouped according to the pattern which they had most likely inspired. Thus, clauses with a verb (either finite or non-finite) in the initial position and an overt subject would be classified as being potential models for the true V-1 pattern. V-1 clauses without an overt subject and V-2 would be treated as models for the V-2 rule. V-late clauses were considered as a model for the V-final rule. All ambiguous models were grouped together; if a given OE or OHG clause was a free translation, Latin was classified as providing ‘no clear model’ for the translator. Short ambiguous OE/OHG conjunct clauses were excluded from the test.

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 279



Table 32.  Comparison of non-conjunct and conjunct clauses (strictly V-final order). Text

non-conjunct clauses with S

conjunct clauses with S

Overall number

V-final order

Overall number

V-final order

Genesis

565

34 (6.0%)

257

24 (9.3%)

Bede

410

  58 (14.2%)

146

  62 (42.5%)

Luke

512

  72 (14.1%)

226

  52 (23.0%)

Tatian

637

20 (3.2%)

184

  8 (4.3%)

Isidor

184

  25 (13.6%)

  87

  8 (9.2%)

Physiologus

  98

0 (0%)

   9

0 (0%)

Table 33.  Comparison of non-conjunct and conjunct clauses (V-late order). Text

non-conjunct clauses with S

Genesis

conjunct clauses with S

Overall number

V-late order

Overall number

V-late order

565

182 (32.2%)

257

  69 (26.8%)

Bede

410

143 (34.9%)

146

  98 (67.1%)

Luke

512

133 (26.0%)

226

  62 (27.4%)

Tatian

637

  87 (13.6%)

184

  20 (10.9%)

Isidor

184

  57 (31.0%)

  87

  15 (17.2%)

Physiologus

  98

0 (0%)

   9

0 (0%)

The pruned decision tree generated for the Genesis translation confirms the dominance of the V-2 order in the investigated group of clauses.

: V-2 rule (363.0/86.0)13

The choice between the main pattern and the minority patterns (V-1 and V-final) does not depend on the order of the source clause, the presence of a locative phrase or subject co-referentiality; none of these factors proved to be reliable predictors of element order in conjunct clauses in Genesis. In Bede, the source text order proves to be the chief factor modelling the choice between the competing orders of conjunct clauses: the Latin V-final model is a good predictor of the OE V-final order, and the Latin V-2 and V-1 models mainly lead to the OE V-2 order. Therefore, we may conclude by saying that the Latin source text exerts an influence on Bede’s conjunct clauses, strengthening the tendency for V-final in the text. The fact that the ambiguous model also predicts 13.  ‘V-2 rule class’ – 277 instances, precision: 0.763, recall: 1; ‘V-1 with S’ class: 6 instances, precision: 0, recall: 0; ‘V-F rule’ class: 80 instances, precision: 0, recall: 0.

280 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

V-final shows that Latin interference cannot be treated as the only factor responsible for the use of this pattern in Bede, but the frequency of V-final must have increased under the influence of the source text.

Latin Latin Latin Latin Latin

order order order order order

= = = = =

no clear model: V-2 rule (27.0/14.0) model for V-2 rule: V-2 rule (29.0/13.0) ambiguous model: V-F rule (41.0/9.0) model for V-1: V-2 rule (23.0/8.0) model for V-F rule: V-F rule (106.0/20.0)14

The tree generated for Luke resembles the one created for Genesis: there are no splits and the dominant order is V-2 irrespective of all the factors included in the model.

: V-2 rule (294.0/78.0)15

It is, of course, no surprise that a tree generated for Tatian shows a primary split into various Latin orders. Note the lower-level leaves relating to type of verb. However, particular verb types only model the choice between V-2 and V-final, not the expected V-1 pattern, which depends only on the Latin in the generated tree.

Latin order Latin order Latin order Latin order | verb type | verb type | verb type | verb type | verb type | verb type

= = = = = = = = = =

model for V-1: V-1 with S (35.0/6.0) ambiguous model: V-2 rule (50.0/7.0) model for V-2: V-2 rule (198.0/22.0) model for V-final auxiliary: V-2 rule (9.0/3.0) being: V-2 rule (5.0/1.0) mutative: V-2 rule (2.0/1.0) negated: V-2 rule (6.0/1.0) other: V-final rule (13.0/1.0) saying: V-2 rule (2.0/1.0)16

In Isidor, the tree is very simple: the model predicts only V-2, just like in the case of Genesis and Luke. This order is very frequent in conjunct clauses in Isidor and the choice between the minority patterns is not governed by any clear rules. 14.  ‘V-2 rule class’ – 72 instances, precision: 0.493, recall: 0.458; ‘V-1 with S’ class: 3 instances, precision: 0, recall: 0; ‘V-F rule’ class: 151 instances, precision: 0.742, recall: 0.781. 15.  ‘V-2 rule class’ – 216 instances, precision: 0.735, recall: 1; ‘V-1 with S’ class: 4 instances, precision: 0, recall: 0; ‘V-F rule’ class: 74 instances, precision: 0, recall: 0. 16.  ‘V-2 rule class’ – 243 instances, precision: 0.867, recall: 0.963; ‘V-1 with S’ class: 54 instances, precision: 0.829, recall: 0.537; ‘V-F rule’ class: 23 instances, precision: 0.8, recall: 0.522.

Chapter 6.  Element order in conjunct clauses 281





: V-2 rule (97.0/33.0)17

The last tree is the same as the one generated for Isidor. It does not branch at all and confirms that conjunct clauses in Physiologus are dominated by clauses consistent with the V-2 rule.

: V-2 rule (38.0/2.0)18

All in all, for the first time in this book, most of the trees do not show any splits, proving that the variation between different element order patterns in conjunct clauses is quite limited. On the basis of the data obtained for Genesis, Luke, Isidor and Physiologus, only V-2 was predicted by the model. However, in the remaining two translations, Bede and Tatian, the source text order turned out to be a reliable predictor of element order patterns. Strong dependence on the Latin source is an expected result in the case of Tatian, and it confirms our findings from Chapters 3–5 and Chapter 7 below, where Bede turns out to be the most source-dependent OE translation in our corpus.

17.  ‘V-2 rule class’ – 64 instances, precision: 0.66, recall: 1; ‘V-1 with S’ class: 14 instances, precision: 0, recall: 0; ‘V-F rule’ class: 19 instances, precision: 0, recall: 0. 18.  ‘V-2 rule class’ – 36 instances, precision: 0.947, recall: 1; ‘V-1 with S’ class: 2 instances, precision: 0, recall: 0.

Chapter 7

The position of objects

7.1 Introduction: objects in OE and OHG 7.1.1 Objects in Old Germanic languages In element order studies, the position of objects is investigated by analysing their relation to the lexical verb. Since in Old Germanic languages the verb follows different orders depending on clause type, the typical positions of objects in both OE and OHG are a logical consequence of the most frequent element order patterns found in particular clause types, as discussed in Chapters 3–6. The basic choice is between OV and VO, i.e. with the object preceding or following the verb, and in each clause type one of the two patterns seems more natural. A somewhat simplified picture of our expectations would be as follows: Since both OE and OHG main declarative clauses show a tendency towards V-2, in this clause type, the object would typically follow the verb (provided that the object itself is not fronted), resulting in the SVO order. Because questions and commands are typically V-initial, the object would rather follow the verb, making the V(S)O order more typical. Finally, subordinate clauses are expected to show the V-final order, which means that the (S)OV pattern should prevail. This clear picture is complicated by a few factors. First of all, in both OE and OHG, a substantial number of main declarative clauses fail to follow the V-2 order, as shown in Chapters 3 and 4 in this book. If the V-1 pattern is used, the object will naturally follow the verb and the VO order is the only available option. If the object is fronted and the clause follows the V-2 constraint, the resulting pattern is OVS. If inversion fails to take place, which may happen especially if the subject is pronominal, the clause follows the OSV order. Additionally, the object, usually pronominal, may intervene between the subject and the verb, resulting in the SOV order in a main clause; this pattern would be even more likely in OE conjunct clauses, which are supposed to show more V-final patterns, though in our study corpus, only Bede conforms to this tendency, as shown in Chapter 6. In subordinate clauses, a variety of factors may prevent the verb from taking the final position in a clause, as shown in Chapter 5. What is more, as can be seen in the discussion above, OV and VO are in fact cover terms for various sub-patterns since there may be some other clause elements present before or intervening between

284 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

the object and the verb. Therefore, it is necessary to take various variables into consideration in order to present the full picture of the behaviour of objects in an OE or OHG text. It is the aim of this chapter to analyse and compare the factors influencing the position of objects in various clause types in the OE and OHG translations under scrutiny and to determine if their position is influenced by the order present in the Latin sources. 7.1.2

Objects in OE

In general, OE main clauses follow the VO pattern if the object is nominal (unless it is fronted), while pronominal objects tend to precede the verb. Allen (1995: 34) reports that the SVO order with pronominal objects is a minority pattern. In her study based on Ælfric’s homilies, ca. 72% of main clauses1 with an overt subject and a pronominal object were found to be SOV. Mitchell (1985: §3907) assumes “regular, but not compulsory” intervention of a pronominal object between the subject and the verb (which is in accordance with the figures produced by Allen 1995) and criticises Traugott (1972: 107), who claims that there is an “obligatory shift of pronoun objects to pre-verbal position” in OE. Mitchell’s criticism is based on the fact that post-verbal pronominal objects do occur in OE main clauses, so the description of this strong tendency in categorical terms is not justified. In subordinate clauses, the tendencies are different. According to Lass, “[a]s OE developed, a strong tendency arose to restrict OV to subordinate clauses” (1994: 224). Therefore, while in main clauses nominal objects would rather appear after the verb, the opposite tendency is expected in subordinate clauses. As stated by Traugott (1992: 274), “[t]he basic OV word order of OE2 is most easily observed in subordinate clauses”. Given the tendency of pronominal objects to precede the verb, the OV order, generally expected in subordinate clauses, should be applied 1.  This result is not directly comparable to our figures since Allen counted non-conjunct and conjunct clauses together and did not produce separate figures for clauses with simple and complex verb phrases, which, as she herself admits, is a weakness of her study. She also excluded clauses with object fronting and V-1 clauses, i.e. her study compares the frequency of SVO and SOV patterns. Nonetheless, her research shows a strong tendency for pronouns to occur pre-verbally. 2.  Traugott’s suggestion that the basic OE element order was OV was followed by other early generative studies of OE syntax, e.g. Kemenade (1987), though Pintzuk (1999) suggested a different analysis with two competing underlying orders, OV and VO. Fuss and Trips (2002) claim that the variation is best explained by two competing grammars that developed in OE as a result of language contact with Scandinavian OV languages. Whatever theoretical approach is taken, it is an undoubted fact that there are various orders involving objects in OE and that the frequency of these orders is different for nominal and pronominal objects and for various clause types.



Chapter 7.  The position of objects 285

especially consistently with pronouns. Even when the V-final pattern was becoming increasingly less frequent in OE in general, it still remained dominant with pronominal objects (Traugott 1992: 276). Because, as shown above, the position of objects in OE to a great extent depends on the clause type, scholars pursuing more formalised approaches follow the line of reasoning presented by Pintzuk (1999) and limit their study to clauses with a non-finite verb form because “variation between OV and VO can be studied there more effectively” (Fischer et al. 2000: 51). Studies focussing on the relative position of objects and lexical verbs in clauses with complex verb phrases report that pronominal objects following the non-finite verb form are very infrequent and found only in texts later than 950 AD (Fischer et al. 2000: 142). Therefore, this order is considered an innovation which later, during the Middle English period, resulted in the gradual loss of the OV order in all syntactic contexts. On the other hand, the position of nominal objects with respect to a non-finite verb in OE is variable (Fischer et al. 2000: 52). Another factor which is taken into account in the study of object position in OE is information structure. As mentioned by Petrova (2014), following Roberts (1997) and Biberauer & Roberts (2005), the post-verbal placement of objects in OE seems to be a focussing strategy. A recent study by Taylor & Pintzuk (2014) has shown that the variability of the position of nominal objects, namely the choice between the OV and VO orders, is to a certain extent influenced by information structure. It is interesting to note that Taylor & Pintzuk (2014) freely use examples from translated texts (e.g. Bede, Genesis and Exodus), without any reference to element order in the Latin source texts. Scholars working on OHG would typically exclude some of these examples because they follow the original order, e.g. the clause 1(b) be ðære he gestrynde Enoch (Taylor & Pintzuk 2014: 56) corresponds to the Latin quae concepit et peperit Enoch, which means that the source and target texts both exhibit the VO order. This shows how differently OE and OHG scholars approach translated material (cf. Chapter 2). On the other hand, Koopman (2005), in his study devoted to post-verbal pronouns and particles, expressed doubts about the reliability of the data that he used as some of the texts from the YCOE corpus (Taylor et al. 2003) are translated from Latin. In short, it seems that while the influence of clause type and object type on the position of objects in OE is unquestionable, the status of information structure and the influence of Latin on translated texts is still not fully understood. The present study is meant to provide some answers to the latter issue.

286 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

7.1.3

Objects in OHG

In OHG, as in OE, main declarative clauses are expected to be SVO, with OVS when the object is fronted for stylistic or emphatic reasons (Lockwood 1968: 274). On the other hand, subordinates should rather exhibit the SOV order (Axel 2007: 8), though the object may follow the verb if it is “particularly long or if it takes a complement” or “if the object is associated with a relative clause” (Lockwood 1968: 263). A different picture is presented by Petrova & Hinterhölzl (2010), who admit that even light phrases, i.e. simple nouns and pronouns, may appear after the verb in subordinate clauses, which makes OHG different from Modern German (Petrova & Hinterhölzl 2010: 197). According to Fuss & Trips (2002: 8), the existence of subordinate clauses with post-verbal pronouns “casts some doubts on the standard analysis of OHG as a uniform OV language”. Nonetheless, similarly to OE, in subordinate clauses, pronominal objects are typically found in the preverbal position, even in later texts, because the OV order has survived in German in contrast to English, where the use of OV gradually decreased. Axel (2007) analyses the different behaviour of pronouns (as both subjects and objects) in contrast to full noun phrases in main clauses. She shows that in early OHG (represented by Tatian, Isidor and the Monsee Fragments), there is variability between the pre-verbal and post-verbal position, while in late OHG (represented mainly by Notker’s works) the X-pron-V order becomes very sporadic and the frequency of such clauses significantly decreases; this observation holds both for pronominal subjects and pronominal objects. She also notices that pronoun placement is, in most cases, independent of Latin, as the pronoun is ‘often’ realised overtly in contrast to Latin, and then inserted in the pre-verbal position (Axel 2007: 242). But, since her study does not include any statistics, it is not clear what ‘often’ exactly means. Robinson (1997: 17) states rather vaguely in connection with SOV main declaratives that “it is not the case that personal pronouns must appear before the verb, but they may” and mentions Fourquet’s speculations that rhythmic factors may play a role in the choice between the OV and VO positions. Bernhardt & Davis (1997: 53) report that in non-conjunct main declaratives, the direct object is mostly post-verbal, while the indirect object can either follow or precede the verb. However, most of the indirect objects in the examples provided by the authors are pronominal so it is not clear whether the direct-indirect distinction is important as pronominal and nominal objects are not kept separate in their study. The authors also claim that “there is a significant difference between conjunct and non-conjunct clauses” in this respect because in conjunct clauses the direct object is found on both sides of the verb, while in non-conjunct clauses the direct object “almost always follows the verb” (Bernhardt & Davis 1997: 57). They



Chapter 7.  The position of objects 287

also found variability in nominal clauses, relative clauses (with a slight dominance of OV), and most adverbial clauses (conditional clauses were found to be consistently OV), though the lack of distinction between nominal and pronominal objects makes these results difficult to interpret. In their study, Bernhardt & Davis (1997) disregard the possibility that the order of the source text might have exerted influence on their OHG data. Such an assumption is rather risky, considering the controversial status of Tatian as a reliable source of information on OHG syntax (cf. Chapter 2). However, as claimed by Dittmer & Dittmer (1998), the variation between OV and VO is a native feature of the language since both orders appear independently of the Latin source texts. Nonetheless, Latin interference must be taken into account in the study of translated texts. Finally, Petrova (2012) analyses the influence of information structure on the choice between OV and VO in OE and OHG, and concludes that in OHG, the position of a nominal object in relation to the verb does depend on its information status and that this phenomenon is independent of the source text:3 new information nominal objects appear in the post-verbal position contrary to the Latin original. Therefore, it seems that information structure has a similar influence on both OE and OHG. On the whole, we may sum up by stating that exactly the same factors are said to influence the position of objects in OE and OHG: clause type, object type and information structure, while in translated texts, Latin influence also needs to be taken into account. 7.2 Research questions and study design In order to investigate and compare the position of objects in OE and OHG translations, the following research questions have been formulated: a. what are the attested and most frequent positions of objects in various types of clauses? b. how does object type (i.e. pronominal vs. nominal) influence its position? c. to what extent is the object position influenced by the order of the source text? In this chapter, there is a separate section devoted to the position of pronominal objects (7.4) and a section presenting nominal objects (7.5). Clauses with complex verb phrases are discussed separately in section 7.6. Section 7.7 presents the relation of all the identified patterns to the Latin source texts. The aim is to establish 3.  Petrova’s study is based on syntactically deviating examples (cf. Chapter 2).

288 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

the degree of dependence of these patterns on the original Latin order and, in this way, determine which patterns are clearly native. At this point, it is necessary to clarify a few methodological issues related to the scope of the analysis presented in this chapter. First of all, the chapter is focused solely on the placement of single pronominal and nominal objects in a clause, i.e. prepositional objects and double object constructions are excluded from the analysis. Secondly, the label ‘pronominal object’ covers all types of pronouns, i.e. personal, demonstrative, possessive and indefinite pronouns. The decision to combine results for all pronoun types is motivated by the fact that an overwhelming majority of over 86% of the objects in question are personal pronouns and giving detailed statistics with fine-grained subdivisions would bring very little insight while unnecessarily complicating the analysis. In addition, datives of interest are included in the sample because the borderline between indirect objects and datives of interest is very vague. Since no studies report any differences in the behaviour of these two categories, we have decided to include them in this chapter. If a given structure is found only or predominantly with datives of interest (or with only one pronoun type), that is indicated in the analysis. Furthermore, we want to emphasise that in this chapter, we do not include information structure as one of the factors. The logic behind this decision is that information structure may influence the choice between various object positions, but the choice is possible only if native rules of syntax allow it. The aim of the chapter is to show which options are available in given syntactic environments and which of these options are used freely and independently of the source text. Naturally, we expect to find variation which cannot be accounted for on the basis of object type, clause type or Latin, and in such situations, we assume that the choice between OV and VO was, at least to some extent, governed by information structure. A systematic analysis of the influence of information status on object position is beyond the scope of this study and the reader interested in this aspect is referred to Taylor & Pintzuk (2014) for OE and Petrova (2012) for a comparative study of OE and OHG. 7.3 Position of pronominal objects In both OE and OHG, pronominal objects are expected to precede the verb in subordinate clauses and appear both before and after the verb in main clauses (at least in early OHG).

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 289



Genesis: As shown in Table 1, in main declarative clauses, both conjunct and non-conjunct, the frequency of OV and VO in Genesis is balanced, as illustrated with (1) and (2). Table 1.  Position of pronominal objects in relation to V in Genesis according to clause type in clauses with simple VP. Clause type

OV

VO

Total

non-conjunct main declarative

  18 (52.9%)

  16 (47.1%)

  34

main conjunct

  31 (53.4%)

  27 (46.6%)

  58

0 (0%)

  10 (100%)

  10

main interrogative main imperative

0 (0%)

   5 (100%)

   5

MAIN TOTAL

  49 (45.8%)

  58 (54.2%)

107

relative

  22 (100%)

0 (0%)

  22

adverbial

  17 (85.0%)

   3 (15.0%)

  20

nominal SUBORDINATE TOTAL

  6 (100%)

0 (0%)

   6

  45 (93.7%)

   3 (6.3%)

  48

(1) Seo nædre bepæhte me 4 (Genesis, cl. 256) the snake deceived me   ‘The serpent deceived me’  (Gen 3:13) (2) ic hi genam þa to wife (Genesis, cl. 1435) I her took then to wife   ‘Then I took her to wife’  (Gen 20:12)

The OV pattern is absolutely dominant in all types of subordinate clauses, as illustrated with (3). (3) Mid þam ðe he hi geseah (Genesis, cl. 1119) when he them saw   ‘When he saw them’  (Gen 18:2)

In the whole analysed sample, there are only 3 subordinate clauses (all of them adverbial) in which a pronominal object follows the verb, as in (4). (4) swa swa ic cydde ðe (Genesis, cl. 1533) as I showed you-SG.DAT   ‘As I showed you’  (Gen 21:23)

4.  In all the examples presented in this chapter, finite verbs are underlined and objects are shown in bold.

290 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Thus, in accordance with our expectations, pronominal objects follow both patterns in main clauses (except for the typically V-initial interrogative and imperative clauses where VO is dominant), while in subordinate clauses, the OV order is clearly preferred. Interestingly, conjunct and non-conjunct main clauses demonstrate similar tendencies, which confirms our analysis presented in Chapter 6. Bede: In Bede, illustrated by Table  2, the OV pattern clearly dominates in conjunct clauses, as in (5), while in non-conjunct declarative clauses, the patterns seem balanced, cf. (6) and (7). However, the frequency of the VO pattern in nonconjunct declaratives is increased by the high incidence of the V-1 order (only 3 out of 14 VO clauses are not V-initial), which proves that in both conjunct and non-conjunct clauses in Bede, the OV order is exceptionally frequent. Table 2.  Position of pronominal objects in Bede according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP. Clause type

OV

VO

Total

non-conjunct main declarative

  12 (46.1%)

  14 (53.9%)

26

conjunct main declarative

  30 (88.2%)

   4 (11.8%)

34

0 (0%)

   3 (100%)

 3

main interrogative main imperative

   1 (33.3%)

   2 (66.7%)

 3

MAIN TOTAL

  44 (65.7%)

  23 (34.3%)

67

10 (100%)

0 (0%)

10

  23 (92.0%)

  2 (8.0%)

25

relative adverbial nominal SUBORDINATE TOTAL

  9 (100%)

0 (0%)

 9

  42 (95.5%)

  2 (4.5%)

44

(5) & he heo to gefeohte forð gecegde (Bede, cl. 703) and he them to fight forth exhorted   ‘And he exhorted them to fight’ (6) Ic þec halsio (Bede, cl. 1030) I you-SG.ACC beseech   ‘I beseech you’ (7) Sægde him mon (Bede, cl. 1770) said him one   ‘And someone told him’

In subordinate clauses, the OV pattern is dominant, as in (8). Only 2 subordinate clauses with a post-verbal pronominal object were identified in the analysed sample; they are shown in (9) and (10).



Chapter 7.  The position of objects 291

(8) swa him Sanctus Gregorius bebead (Bede, cl. 776) as them St. Gregory ordered   ‘As St. Gregory directed them’ (9) swa swa hy wæron him as they were him efnceasterwaran þæs heofonlican rices (Bede, cl. 919) fellow-citizens the heavenly kingdom’s   ‘As if they were his fellow-citizens in the kingdom of heaven’



(10) Þa geðafodan þæt uneaðe þa his gesacan, þa lædde mon forð when agreed that reluctantly the his opponents then led one forth sumne blinde mon of Ongolcynne (Bede, cl. 1868–1869) some blind man of English descent   ‘When his opponents reluctantly consented, someone brought out a blind man of English descent’



Both examples are rather atypical: (9) is a V-2 adverbial clause with a dative of interest, which in our corpus was annotated together with indirect objects; the pronoun could also be analysed as part of the subject complement phrase. In (10), the pronominal object is a demonstrative pronoun. Since the pattern was found only in such atypical examples, it is impossible to claim that it was productive: in subordinate clauses in Bede, pronominal objects show a clear tendency to appear pre-verbally. Luke: In Luke, as shown in Table 3, pronominal objects in conjunct clauses follow both the OV and the VO pattern equally frequently, as in (11) and (12), while non-conjunct declarative clauses show a small preference for the VO order, illustrated with (13). However, the difference between conjunct and non-conjunct clauses is not statistically significant.

292 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 3.  Position of pronominal objects in Luke according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP. OV

VO

Total

non-conjunct main declarative

Clause type

  38 (40.4%)

  56 (59.6%)

  94

conjunct main declarative

  31 (52.5%)

  28 (47.5%)

  59

0 (0%)

  13 (100%)

  13

main interrogative main imperative

  2 (8.0%)

  23 (92.0%)

  25

MAIN TOTAL

  71 (37.2%)

120 (62.8%)

191

relative

  20 (90.9%)

  2 (9.1%)

  22

adverbial

  27 (81.8%)

   6 (18.2%)

  33

nominal

  25 (86.2%)

   4 (13.8%)

  29

SUBORDINATE TOTAL

  72 (85.7%)

  12 (14.3%)

  84

(11) & hig hit ne gehyrdon (Luke, cl. 1879) and they it not heard   ‘And they have not heard it’  (Lk 10:24) (12) & forleton hig (OE Luke, cl. 684) and left-3PL them   ‘And they left them’  (Lk 5:28) (Luke, cl. 852) (13) Ic ahsige eow I ask you-PL.ACC   ‘I ask you’  (Lk 6:9)

Subordinate clauses in Luke are mostly OV, which is an expected result, cf. (14). Nonetheless, in as many as 12 subordinate clauses, a pronominal object follows the verb, as in (15) . (14) Þa se Hælend hig geseah (Luke, cl. 1087) when the Saviour her saw   ‘When Jesus saw her’  (Lk 7:13) (15) þæt heo fylste me (Luke, cl. 1949) that she help-SBJ me   ‘That she help me’  (Lk 10:40)

Thus, two of the OE translations show similar tendencies in subordinate clauses: pronominal objects appear almost exclusively in the pre-verbal position in Genesis and Bede, while in Luke the number of post-verbal objects is relatively higher. In non-conjunct main clauses, the proportions between OV and VO are rather balanced in all the OE translations (though if we excluded V-1 clauses, the OV

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 293



pattern would be dominant in Bede), while the syntactic behaviour of conjunct clauses depends on the translation: in Genesis and Luke, they follow the same pattern as non-conjunct clauses, while in Bede, pronominal objects are mostly placed pre-verbally in this clause type. Tatian: In main clauses from our first OHG translation, Tatian, no order differences may be observed between conjunct and non-conjunct clauses (contrary to the suggestions by Bernhardt & Davis (1997) on the basis of the same text); both tend to be VO, as in (16) and (17). Table 4.  Position of pronominal objects in Tatian according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP. OV

VO

Total

non-conjunct main declarative

Clause type

18 (9.8%)

165 (90.2%)

183

conjunct main declarative

  9 (9.1%)

  90 (90.9%)

  99

main interrogative

  1 (5.9%)

  16 (94.1%)

  17

main imperative

   4 (10.5%)

  34 (89.5%)

  38

MAIN TOTAL

32 (9.5%)

305 (90.5%)

337

relative

  21 (91.3%)

   2 (8.7%)

  23

adverbial

  40 (81.6%)

   9 (18.4%)

  49

nominal

  35 (83.3%)

   7 (16.7%)

  42

SUBORDINATE TOTAL

  96 (84.2%)

  18 (15.8%)

114

(16) Her quad iru thó (Tatian, cl. 2434) he told her then   ‘Then he told her’  (Lk 8:48) (17) inti thes hoisten megin biscatuit thih (Tatian, cl. 120) and the highest power overshadows you-SG.ACC   ‘And the highest power shall overshadow you’  (Lk 1:35)

In fact, the OV order, as in (18), is extremely infrequent in main clauses. The only instances where a pronominal object occurs in the pre-verbal position with a higher frequency are clauses with fronted objects, as in (19). (18) inti finstarnessi thaz ni bigriffun (Tatian, cl. 22) and darkness-PL that not comprehended   ‘And the darkness did not comprehend it’  (Jn 1:5) (19) thaz tuont suntige mán (Tatian, cl. 1375) that do sinful men   ‘Sinners do this’  (Lk 6:33)

294 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

In subordinate clauses, pronominal objects mostly precede the verb, as in (20). However, there are 18 subordinate clauses with a post-verbal pronominal object, as in (21). (20) thaz her sie ni tribi uzan thero lantskefi (Tatian, cl. 2131) that he them not banish outside the region   ‘That he would not banish them outside the region’  (Lk 8:31) (Tatian, cl. 833–834) (21) oba thu nidarfallenti bétos mih if you-SG down-falling adore me   ‘If falling down you will adore me’  (Mt 4:9)

Isidor: In Isidor, as shown in Table 5, pronominal objects tend to follow the verb in main clauses, as in (22). However, the frequency of the OV pattern is not negligible, as illustrated with (23). No discernible differences exist between conjunct and non-conjunct clauses. Table 5.  Position of pronominal objects in relation to V in Isidor according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP. Clause type

OV

non-conjunct main declarative

9 (34.6%)

17 (65.4%)

26

conjunct main declarative

4 (40.0%)

6 (60.0%)

10

main interrogative

1 (100%)

0 (0%)

 1

main imperative

0 (–)

0 (–)

 0

MAIN TOTAL

14 (37.8%)

VO

23 (62.2%)

Total

37

relative

6 (100%)

0 (0%)

 6

adverbial

8 (88.9%)

1 (11.1%)

 9

nominal

4 (80.0%)

1 (20.0%)

 5

18 (90.0%)

2 (10.0%)

20

SUBORDINATE TOTAL

(22) Ih saghem dhir (Isidor, cl. 698) I tell you-SG   ‘I tell you’ infahu (Isidor, cl. 365) (23) ih inan I him-ACC receive   ‘I shall receive him’

Subordinate clauses are mostly OV, as in (24). Hence, the difference between main and subordinate clauses is fairly clear, though the low number of pronominal objects makes the analysis somewhat less reliable.



Chapter 7.  The position of objects 295

(24) dhazs uuerodheoda druhtin mih sendida (Isidor, cl. 227) that army lord me sent   ‘That the Lord of the armies sent me’

There are only 2 subordinate clauses with a pronominal object following the verb, shown in (25) and (26). (25) dhazs uuerodheoda druhtin sendida mih zi dhir (Isidor, cl. 247) that army lord sent me to you-SG   ‘That the lord of the armies sent me to you’ (26) Huuanda so selp so im noh ein tempel ni bileiph because as them neither a temple not remained noh einich altari noh einich offerunc ghelstar, so sama ni bileiph im nor any altar nor any offering sacrifice so not remained them einich chuninc noh einich sacerdos iudęoliudim (Isidor, cl. 669–670) any king nor any priest jewish people-DAT   ‘Because/therefore, just as no temple or altar or offering was left to the Jewish people, they were also left without any king or priest’

Schlachter (2009: 240) discusses the clause presented in (25) in her paper concerning dhaz-clauses, suggesting that even though the object is pronominal, the clause is a quotation from the Old Testament and therefore the pronoun is in fact new material. Thus, according to Schlachter, this atypical pattern is used due to information structure: the pronoun is placed post-verbally as new information. In our opinion, this is rather a manifestation of source text influence on the Isidor translation since the original Latin clause follows the same order (cf. (117) in section 7.6.1 below). The other example, (26), is a split clause introduced by huuanda. This example is difficult to interpret because huuanda (or bithiu huuanda) clauses are said to be ambiguous between subordinate and main (Dittmer 1991 in Petrova & Hinterhölzl 2010: 194); therefore, this example on its own cannot be used to prove that post-verbal pronominal objects were a productive option in subordinates. The clause translates a Latin quia-clause, which makes the subordinate interpretation more probable (it is annotated as subordinate in our database), though of course the alternative reading cannot be excluded. Physiologus: In Physiologus, presented in Table 6, the patterning is very clear. All main clauses are VO, as in (27), i.e. there is no case of a pronominal object preceding the finite verb.

296 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 6.  Position of pronominal objects in relation to V in Physiologus according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP. Clause type

OV

VO

non-conjunct main declarative

0 (0%)

7 (100%)

 7

conjunct main declarative

0 (0%)

4 (100%)

 4

main interrogative

0 (–)

0 (–)

 0

main imperative

0 (–)

MAIN TOTAL

0 (0%)

relative adverbial

0 (–)

Total

 0

11 (100%)

11

3 (100%)

0 (0%)

 3

5 (62.5%)

3 (37.5%)

 8

nominal

1 (100%)

0 (0%)

 1

SUBORDINATE TOTAL

9 (75.0%)

3 (25.0%)

12

(27) so durehbizzent sie si (Phys., cl. 236) then through-bite they her   ‘Then they bite their way out through her’

In subordinate clauses, the most frequent pattern is OV, as in (28). There are 3 pronominal objects following the verb; one of them, shown in (29), is a V-1 conditional clause, and the remaining two are conjunct by unde to the preceding subordinate clause, as in (30). The conjunction tene so is correlated with so, which means that the clauses in (30) should rather be interpreted as subordinate (the reading ‘when the father comes, it comes back to life’ seems much more plausible then ‘then the father comes, then it comes back to life’). (Phys., cl. 82) (28) So ez si gesihit when it her sees   ‘When it notices her’ (Phys., cl. 264) (29) gesihet siu in aber giuuatoten sees she him but clothed   ‘But if she sees him in clothes’ (30) Tene so chumit ter fater unde blaset ez ana, so uuirdit ez when comes the father and blows it on then is it erchihit (Phys., cl. 32–34) revived   ‘When the father comes and blows in its face, then it comes back to life’

In short, the OHG translations show a clear difference in the tendencies exhibited by main and subordinate clauses: all types of main clauses tend to be VO, while subordinate clauses tend to be OV.

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 297



On the whole, pronominal objects in OE and OHG exhibit similar behaviour in subordinate clauses in that the pre-verbal position is preferred in all the texts. However, there are a number of clear examples of post-verbal pronominal objects in Luke and Tatian (both gospel translations, which suggests a similar direction of source text influence). In the OE translations, as far as pronominal objects are concerned, main clauses tend to be VO, but the proportion of OV clauses is relatively high, whereas in all the OHG texts, the OV order is a minority pattern in main clauses. It is also interesting to note that conjunct clauses show different patterns compared to non-conjunct clauses only in Bede, where the tendency towards OV is clearly visible; in the remaining translations there is no discernible difference between the two clause types. This is an expected result for OHG (though it contradicts what Bernhardt & Davis (1997) claim, cf. section 7.1.3) but rather surprising as far as Genesis and Luke are concerned. 7.4 Position of nominal objects Nominal objects are expected to follow the verb in main clauses and appear mostly (though not exclusively) pre-verbally in subordinate clauses. Genesis: In Genesis, the order difference between main and subordinate clauses is not as clear-cut as we might expect. As shown in Table 7, in all clause types except nominal clauses, the object is found mostly in the post-verbal position. However, the VO pattern enjoys a higher frequency of occurrence in main clauses than in subordinate clauses. Table 7.  Position of nominal objects in relation to V in Genesis according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP. Clause type

OV

VO

Total

  7 (5.4%)

122 (94.6%)

129

conjunct main declarative

  13 (11.0%)

105 (89.0%)

118

main interrogative

   1 (33.3%)

   2 (66.7%)

   3

non-conjunct main declarative

main imperative

  3 (11.55)

  23 (88.5%)

  26

MAIN TOTAL

24 (8.7%)

252 (91.3%)

276

relative

   6 (46.2%)

   7 (53.8%)

  13

adverbial

  10 (25.0%)

  30 (75.0%)

  40

nominal

  13 (59.1%)

   9 (40.9%)

  22

SUBORDINATE TOTAL

  29 (38.7%)

  46 (61.3%)

  75

298 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

It is noteworthy that conjunct clauses are overwhelmingly VO, as in (31), and the alternative pattern is found in few clauses, but it is attested, as illustrated in (32). In non-conjunct clauses, the tendency is the same, as in (33). The OV order is found mainly in clauses with fronted objects, as in (34). (31) & he brohte hlaf & win (Genesis, cl. 906) and he brought bread and wine   ‘And he brought bread and wine’  (Gen 14:18) (32) & he ðær weofod arærde on ða ealdan wisan (Genesis, cl. 1593) and he there altar built on the old way   ‘And there he built an altar in the old way’  (Gen 22:9) (33) Abraham ða plantode anne holt on Bersabeae (Genesis, cl. 1561) Abraham then planted one grove on Bersabee   ‘Then Abraham planted a grove in Bersabee’  (Gen 21:33) (Genesis, cl. 1102) (34) Min wedd soðlice ic sette to Isaace my covenant truly I set to Isaac   ‘I will truly establish my covenant with Isaac’  (Gen 17:21)

Subordinate clauses are primarily VO, as in (35), though the OV order, which is very infrequent among main clauses, is quite well represented here, as in (36). Nonetheless, OV is definitely not the main pattern. (35) swa ðæt hi ne gesawon his næcednysse (Genesis, cl. 669) so that they now saw his nakedness   ‘So that they did not see his nakedness’  (Gen 9:23) (36) for þan ðe ic nan ðing ne do (Genesis, cl. 1337) because I no thing not do   ‘Because I cannot do anything’  (Gen 19:22)

In short, nominal objects mostly follow the verb in both main and subordinate clauses in Genesis, though the OV pattern is more frequent in the latter clause type. Non-conjunct and conjunct clauses exhibit similar tendencies. Bede: Table 8 shows that in Bede, the OV order is dominant in all clause types except imperatives, which are mostly VO, and non-conjunct declaratives, where OV and VO are balanced. Unlike in the case of pronominal objects, the frequency of VO in this clause type is not considerably increased by V-1 clauses (only 10 out of 42 non-conjunct VO clauses have the finite verb in the initial position), which shows that the position of objects in Bede does depend on their type, at least in non-conjunct main declarative clauses.

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 299



Table 8.  Position of nominal objects in relation to V in Bede according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP. OV

VO

Total

non-conjunct main declarative

Clause type

  39 (48.1%)

  42 (51.9%)

  81

conjunct main declarative

  42 (61.8%)

  26 (38.2%)

  68

main interrogative

   2 (100%)

0 (0%)

   2

main imperative

   3 (27.3%)

   8 (72.7%)

  11

MAIN TOTAL

  86 (53.1%)

  76 (46.9%)

162

relative

  18 (75.0%)

   6 (25.0%)

  24

adverbial

  47 (73.4%)

  17 (26.6%)

  64

nominal

  41 (71.9%)

  16 (28.1%)

  57

SUBORDINATE TOTAL

106 (73.1%)

  39 (26.9%)

145

There is a visible difference between conjunct clauses, which are mostly OV, as in (37), and non-conjunct clauses, where both orders may be found with similar frequencies, as illustrated in (38) and (39). (37) & he ælmihtigne God bæd (Bede, cl. 751) and he almighty God prayed   ‘And he prayed to Almighty God’ (Bede, cl. 522) (38) Theodosius casere æfter Honorie rice onfeng Theodosius cesar after Honorius power took   ‘The emperor Theodosius succeeded Honorius in the empire’ (39) Hig þa forlættan þone wall & heora burh (Bede, cl. 510) they then abandoned the rampart and their cities   ‘Then they abandoned the rampart and their cities’

The fact that the OV pattern is found in main declarative clauses is a surprise in itself since Taylor & Pintzuk (2014) claim that it is very rare in OE (as indeed it is rare in Genesis; but in our sample of Bede, we found numerous examples). All types of subordinate clauses in Bede are mostly OV, as in (40); the VO order is a well-attested minority pattern, as in (41). (40) sona swa hi ðæs landes lyft gestuncan (Bede, cl. 91) as soon as they the land’s air smelt   ‘As soon as they smelt the air of the land’ (41) Mid þy ðe he geseah Sanctum Albanum (Bede, cl. 210) when he saw St. Alban   ‘When he saw St. Alban’

300 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Luke: In Luke, our general expectations are finally met: main clauses tend to be VO and subordinates tend to be OV in all clause subtypes, as shown in Table 9. Table 9.  Position of nominal objects in relation to V in Luke according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP. Clause type

OV

VO

Total

non-conjunct main declarative

26 (32.9%)

  53 (67.1%)

  79

conjunct main declarative

17 (26.6%)

  47 (73.4%)

  64

main interrogative

  1 (16.7%)

   5 (83.3%)

   6

main imperative

3 (9.7%)

  28 (90.3%)

  31

MAIN TOTAL

47 (26.2%)

133 (73.8%)

180

relative

11 (61.1%)

   7 (38.9%)

  18

adverbial

27 (61.4%)

  17 (38.6%)

  44

nominal

21 (75.0%)

   7 (25.0%)

  28

SUBORDINATE TOTAL

59 (65.6%)

  31 (34.4%)

  90

Both conjunct and non-conjunct declarative clauses are mostly VO, as in (42) and (43). (42) foxas habbað holu (Luke, cl. 1763) foxes have holes   ‘Foxes have holes’  (Lk 9:58) (Luke, cl. 17) (43) & hig næfdon nan bearn   and they not-had no son ‘And they had no son’  (Lk 1:7)

The OV pattern is relatively more frequent in subordinate clauses, as in (44), though the alternative order is also present in ca. 34% of clauses, as in (45). (44) Þa se Hælend þæt word gehyrde (Luke, cl. 1489) when the Saviour that word heard   ‘When Jesus heared this word’  (Lk 8: 50) (45) forþam þe hig næfdon rum on cumena huse (Luke, cl. 241) because they not-had room on guest house   ‘Because there was no room for them in the inn’  (Lk 2:7)

As in the case of pronominal objects, the tendencies identified in clauses with a nominal object in the OE translations are to a great extent text-specific. Conjunct and non-conjunct clauses behave in a similar way in Genesis and Luke, where both clause categories are mostly VO. In Bede, conjunct clauses are dominated

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 301



by OV (though it has to be emphasised that subordinate clauses in Bede show a higher proportion of OV compared to conjuncts), while in non-conjunct clauses, the VO and OV patterns are balanced. As far as subordinate clauses are concerned, they are mostly VO in Genesis and mostly OV in Bede and Luke (which is in accordance with the results presented in Chapter 5, where subordinate clauses in Genesis were found to be less V-final compared to the other OE translations). Tatian: In Tatian, all clause types are mostly VO, though OV is more frequent in subordinate clauses, as shown in Table 10. Table 10.  Position of nominal objects in Tatian according to clause type in clauses with simple VP. Clause type

OV

VO

Total

14 (8.3%)

155 (91.7%)

169

conjunct main declarative

  15 (20.5%)

  58 (79.5%)

  73

main interrogative

   5 (31.3%)

  11 (68.8%)

  16

non-conjunct main declarative

main imperative

   9 (16.7%)

  45 (83.3%)

  54

MAIN TOTAL

  43 (13.8%)

269 (86.2%)

312

relative

   6 (20.0%)

  24 (80.0%)

  30

adverbial

  20 (24.1%)

  63 (75.9%)

  83

nominal

  18 (36.0%)

32 (64.%)

  50

SUBORDINATE TOTAL

  44 (27.0%)

119 (73.0%)

163

The VO pattern dominates both in main and subordinate clauses, as in (46) and (47), with a relatively well represented OV pattern in subordinate clauses, as in (48). There are no differences between conjunct and non-conjunct clauses. (46) Maria gicós thaz bezista teil (Tatian, cl. 2586) Mary chose the best part   ‘Mary chose the best part’  (Lk 10:42) (47) Mít thiu hér gisah thie menigi (Tatian, cl.1134) when he saw the multitude   ‘When he saw the multitude’  (Mt 5:1) (48) thaz her giuuizscaf sageti fon liohte (Tatian, cl.629) that he testimony said of light   ‘That he gave testimony of the light’  (Jn 1:8)

On the whole, the low frequency of occurrence of the OV pattern in subordinate clauses in Tatian is rather surprising; the possibility of source text influence needs to be checked (cf. section 7.6).

302 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Isidor: In Isidor, main clauses are predominantly VO, as in (49), but in subordinate clauses, nominal objects mostly precede the verb, as illustrated by Table 11. Table 11.  Position of nominal objects in Isidor according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP. Clause type

OV

VO

Total

non-conjunct main declarative

  11 (21.2%)

41 (78.8%)

52

conjunct main declarative

   6 (35.3%)

11 (64.7%)

17

main interrogative

   2 (33.3%)

  4 (66.7%)

 6

main imperative

0 (0%)

10 (100%)

10

MAIN TOTAL

  19 (22.4%)

66 (77.6%)

85

relative

   4 (66.7%)

  2 (33.3%)

 6

adverbial

  22 (71.0%)

  9 (29.0%)

31

nominal

   4 (66.7%)

  2 (33.3%)

 6

SUBORDINATE TOTAL

  30 (69.8%)

13 (30.2%)

43

(49) In dhemu eristin chideda got himil endi aerdha (Isidor, cl. 315) in the beginning made god heaven and earth   ‘At the beginning God created heaven and earth’

Conjunct clauses are very infrequent in this sample but they do not seem to be much different from non-conjunct clauses. Subordinate clauses are mostly OV with some VO, as in (50) and (51) respectively; in the latter example, the postverbal object is very long and its weight seems to be the most probable cause of its position. (50) Aer danne diu magad christan gabar in fleische (Isidor, cl. 30) before the virgin christ bore in flesh   ‘Before the virgin gave birth to Christ’ (51) bidhiu huuanda sie chihordon gotes stimna hluda (Isidor, cl. 269) because they heard god’s voice loud   ‘Because they heard God’s loud voice’

Furthermore, it must be noted that among the 13 VO subordinate clauses, there are 5 huuanda and bidhiu huuanda clauses, as in (51). As mentioned earlier, the introductory elements in question are usually treated as ambiguous between subordinating complementisers and main clause adverbials in OHG. In addition, there are also 4 clauses introduced by enti, conjoined to preceding subordinate clauses. This leaves us with only 4 clear cases of VO in subordinate clauses; thus, the pattern is present, though clearly infrequent.

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 303



Physiologus: In Physiologus, the difference between main and subordinate clauses is even clearer than in the previous OHG translations because the OV pattern is very infrequent in main clauses and dominant in subordinates, as shown in Table 15. Table 12.  Position of nominal objects in Physiologus according to clause type in clauses with a simple VP. Clause type

OV

non-conjunct main declarative

0 (0%)

conjunct main declarative main interrogative

VO

Total

25 (100%)

25

2 (22.2%)

7 (77.8%)

 9

0 (–)

0 (–)

 0

main imperative

0 (–)

0 (–)

 0

MAIN TOTAL

2 (5.9%)

32 (94.1%)

34

relative

6 (54.5%)

5 (45.5%)

11

adverbial

7 (70.0%)

3 (30.0%)

10

nominal

2 (66.7%)

1 (33.3%)

 3

15 (62.5%)

9 (37.5%)

24

SUBORDINATE TOTAL

Main clauses are almost exclusively VO, as in (52), while subordinate clauses are mainly OV with some VO, as in (53) and (54). (52) Ter leo hebit triu dinc ann imo (Phys., cl. 10) the lion has three things on him   ‘The lion has three features’ (Phys., cl. 176) (53) er si daz obiz azzin before they the fruit eat   ‘Before they eat the fruit’ (54) daz er uberuuindit alle bimentun (Phys., cl. 49) that he overcomes all pigments   ‘That it is stronger than all other scents’

On the whole, as far as the position of nominal objects is concerned, all the OHG translations show a clear preference for VO in main clauses, while in the case of subordinate clauses, Tatian is mostly VO, whereas in Isidor and Physiologus, the tendency for OV is evident. In short, only Luke, Isidor and Physiologus show a clear difference between main and subordinate clauses as far as the position of nominal objects is concerned (preference for OV in subordinate clauses and VO in main clauses). In Genesis and Tatian, all clause types tend to have the nominal object in the post-verbal

304 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

position. The only difference between main and subordinate clauses in these two translations is that in subordinate clauses, the OV pattern is found more often, whereas in main clauses, pre-verbal nominal objects are rare (Tatian) or virtually absent (Genesis). On the other hand, in Bede, there is no clear difference between main and subordinate clauses since main conjunct clauses tend to be OV, just like subordinate clauses, while in non-conjunct main clauses, OV and VO are perfectly balanced. On the whole, the differences between the texts are extensive and, at this point, preclude any generalisations about OE and/or OHG syntax. 7.5 Objects in clauses with a complex verb phrase Since the position of the non-finite verb does not depend on clause type (cf. Fischer et al. 2000; Koopman 2005), the position of objects in clauses with a complex verb phrase, which is the topic of this section, is shown without division into clause types; naturally, nominal and pronominal objects are counted separately. Genesis: In Genesis, clauses with complex VPs in combination with a pronominal object are consistently OV, i.e. the object always precedes its lexical verb, as shown in Table 13 and illustrated in (55). Table 13.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Genesis in clauses with a complex VP. Object type pronominal objects nominal objects

VO

OV

0 (0%)

14 (100%)

  27 (72.9%)

10 (17.1%)

(55) þæt ic hyt agan sceal (Genesis, cl. 946) that I it own shall   ‘That I shall possess it’  (Gen 15:8)

In the case of nominal objects, the VO pattern is dominant, as illustrated in (56), and OV is clearly a minority pattern, as in (57). (56) þonne mæg he eac swylce geriman þinne ofspring (Genesis, cl. 855) than may he likewise count your offspring   ‘Then he shall be able to count your offspring’  (Gen 13:16) (Genesis, cl.1600) (57) Mid ðam ðe he wolde þæt weorc begynnan   when he would that work begin ‘When he wanted to begin the work’ [no clear source in the Vulgate]

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 305



Bede: In the case of Bede, clauses with pronominal objects are also consistently OV, as shown in Table 14 and illustrated with (58). Table 14.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Bede in clauses with a complex VP. Object type pronominal objects nominal objects

VO

OV

0 (0%)

34 (100%)

  14 (16.5%)

71 (83.5%)

(58) þæt hi næfre ma hi secan woldan (Bede, cl. 494) that they never more them seek would   ‘That they would never seek them’

Interestingly, in clauses with a nominal object, Bede shows a strong tendency towards the OV order (83%), similarly to clauses with a simple VP, cf. (59). (59) þæt heo mosten Cristes geleafan bodian (Bede, cl. 852) that they could Christ’s faith preach   ‘That they could teach the faith of Christ’

Luke: In Luke, one clause with a complex VP and a pronominal object represents the VO pattern, as illustrated in Table 15 and shown in (60); the presence of this exceptional pattern is modelled on the Latin source clause (as shown later in section 7.6). (60) & he wæs bicniende him (Luke, cl. 69) and he was making signs them   ‘And he made signs to them’  (Lk 1:22) Table 15.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Luke in clauses with a complex VP. Object type pronominal objects nominal objects

VO

OV

1 (2.7%)

36 (97.3%)

  3 (23.1%)

10 (76.9%)

The remaining clauses with pronominal objects are all OV, cf. (61). (61) þe him beweddod wæs (Luke, cl. 232) which him wedded was   ‘Who was married to him’  (Lk 2:5)

Clauses with a complex VP and a nominal object are not very frequent in the analysed sample of Luke, but the tendency towards OV still makes itself felt, as

306 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

illustrated in (62). However, the low numbers make it difficult to offer reliable generalisations. (62) And þæt folc wæs Zachariam geanbidiende (Luke, cl. 62) and that people was Zachary-ACC awaiting   ‘And the people were waiting for Zachary’  (Lk 1:21)

In short, the native tendency of OE to place pronominal objects in the pre-verbal position has been confirmed in all the translations (in Luke, a single Latininfluenced counterexample has been identified); nominal objects show much more variation. Tatian: In clauses with a pronominal object in Tatian, the OV pattern dominates, but there are also 6 cases of VO, as shown in Table 16 and illustrated with (63) and (64). Table 16.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Tatian in clauses with a complex VP. Object type

VO

OV

pronominal objects

  6 (17.1%)

29 (82.9%)

nominal objects

15 (53.6%)

13 (46.4%)

(63) thú maht mih gisubiren (Tatian, cl. 1922) you may me clean   ‘You can make me clean’  (Mt 8:2) (64) thiu erloubit ni uuarun imo zi ezzanne, which allowed not were him to eat nibi then einun heithaftun mannon (Tatian, cl. 2811–2812) except the only sacred men-DAT   ‘Which was not allowed to eat for him but only for the priests’  (Lk 6:4)



In clauses with a nominal object, the OV and VO patterns are rather balanced, as illustrated by (65) and (66) respectively. (65) Inti uuas thaz folc beitonti Zachariam (Tatian, cl. 72) and was the people awaiting Zachary-ACC   ‘And the people were waiting for Zachary’  (Lk 1:21) (66) ther uuolle turra zimbron (Tatian, cl. 2761) who would tower build   ‘Who wanted to build a tower’  (Lk 14:28)

Isidor: Table 17 shows that clauses with a complex VP and a pronominal object in Isidor follow the OV pattern without exception, as in (67).

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 307



Table 17.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Isidor in clauses with a complex VP. Object type pronominal objects nominal objects

VO

OV

0 (0%)

14 (100%)

   2 (20.0%)

  8 (80.0%)

(Isidor, cl. 438) (67) endi bidhiu uuard ir uns chiboran   and therefore was he us born ‘And this is why he was born to us’

There are only 10 clauses with a complex VP and a nominal object in Isidor, so the numbers are very low, but it is evident that the OV pattern is dominant, as in (68); VO order is used only twice, as in (69). (68) Odho mahti angil so sama so got mannan chifrumman? (Isidor, cl. 180) or could angel as god man create   ‘Or could an angel create man just like God?’ (69) endi mn zesuua uuas mezssendi himila (Isidor, cl. 353) and my right was measuring heavens   ‘And my right hand was measuring heavens’

Physiologus: In Physiologus, there are 3 clauses with a complex VP and a pronominal object, as illustrated in Table 18, and they are all OV, as in (70). Table 18.  Position of pronominal and nominal objects in Physiologus in clauses with a complex VP. Object type pronominal objects nominal objects

VO

OV

0 (0%)

3 (100%)

   3 (42.8%)

4 (57.2%)

(70) daz imo nihein iagere ginahen nemag (Phys., cl. 187) that him no hunter follow not-may   ‘So that no hunter could follow him’

In this translation, there are also only 7 clauses with a complex VP and a nominal object; both VO and OV orders are used. It seems that VO is preferred when the object is heavy, as in (71), while shorter nominal objects appear with the OV pattern, as in (72).

308 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(71) so nemag ouh nehein man uernemin so not-may also no man understand daz gerune unsiris trotinis (Phys., cl. 93) the will our lord‘s   ‘So no man may understand our Lord’s will’

(72) Tenne soser chint habin uuile (Phys., cl. 162) when-he child have wants   ‘When he wants to have a child’

To sum up, all the texts show a very strong tendency towards the OV order with pronominal objects; it is used without exception in Genesis, Bede, Isidor and Physiologus. Deviations from it found in Luke and Tatian are influenced by Latin (as shown in section 7.6 below). With nominal objects, all the texts use both OV and VO, but the dominant order is VO in Genesis and OV in Bede, Luke and Isidor, while in Tatian and Physiologus, both patterns appear equally frequently. However, the low number of clauses with a complex VP and an object is a serious problem in the two shortest translations from our corpus, i.e. Isidor and Physiologus, and thus the results for these two texts are not fully reliable. 7.6 Relation to Latin Finally, what needs to be investigated before any final conclusions regarding object position are drawn is the potential influence of the Latin source texts on the individual translations. A clause is treated as following Latin if the relative position of the object and the verb is the same in both languages. Clauses modifying Latin are those that (1) provide the object in the translation even though no object is present in the Latin source clause; (2) provide the verb in the translation even though no verb form is present in the Latin source clause; (3) change the relative position of the object and the verb in the source text, i.e. VO is translated as OV or vice versa; and (4) free translations, i.e. clauses without clear sources, and free paraphrases of source clauses. 7.6.1

Clauses with a simple VP

Genesis: Table 19 presents the relations between the order in the source and target texts in the Genesis translation, in clauses with simple verb phrases following the VO pattern. Interestingly, the share of clauses following Latin is relatively high in all of the analysed contexts.

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 309



Table 19.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Genesis (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Reversing Latin O-V order pronominal main main

Adding Free Total V translation

  40 (69.0%)    6 (10.3%)   12 (20.7%) 0 (0%)

subordinate    3 (100%) nominal

Adding O

0 (0%)

200 (79.4%) 12 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

  58

0 (0%)

   3

10 (4.0%)   1 (0.4%)   29 (11.5%) 252

subordinate   36 (78.3%)    5 (10.9%)   1 (2.2%)

0 (0%)

  4 (8.7%)

  46

VO main clauses with pronominal objects follow the original VO order in 69% of cases, as in (73). The attested modifications of the source text order are mostly objects added by the translator, as in (74). (73) & of ðæs treowes wæstme þe is on middan neorxnawange, God bebead and of the tree’s fruit that is on middle paradise’s God ordered us (OE Genesis, cl. 205–206) us   de fructu vero ligni quod est in medio paradisi praecepit nobis of fruit truly tree’s that is in middle paradise’s ordered us Deus (Lat. Genesis, cl. 206–207) God   ‘And of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of paradise God ordered us ...’  (Gen 3:3)

(74) & lufode hi swa swyðe (OE Genesis, cl. 1717) and loved her so much   et in tantum dilexit (Lat. Genesis, cl. 2261) and in so much loved-3SG   ‘And he loved her so much’  (Gen 24:67)



It is noteworthy that the most atypical OE order, i.e. a pronominal object following the verb in a subordinate clause, in all 3 cases could be attributed to source text interference, though the translation is not word for word, as shown in (75). (75) ac cyð him mildheortnysse, swa swa ic cydde ðe but show him kindness as I showed you-SG.DAT   (OE Genesis, cl. 1532–1533) ‘But show him kindness as I showed you’ sed iuxta misericordiam quam feci tibi facies mihi but according to kindness that did-1SG you-SG.DAT do-2SG me-DAT   (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1812–1813) ‘But according to the kindness that I did to you, you shall do to me’  (Gen 21:23)

310 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

The VO pattern with nominal objects, in both main and subordinate clauses, follows the source text in almost 80% of cases, as in (76) and (77) respectively. Such a high degree of correspondence to Latin is exceptional for Genesis, which is rather independent of the source text in its element order (cf. Chapters 3–5). (76) Ic sette min wedd to ðe (OE Genesis, cl. 497) I set my covenant to you-SG   ponamque foedus meum tecum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 529) set-1SG-and covenant my you-SG-with   ‘I will establish my covenant with you’  (Gen 6:18)

(OE Genesis, cl. 1608) (77) þæt ðu swyðe ondrætst God God   that you-SG very fear quod timeas Dominum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1900) that fear-2SG Lord   ‘that you fear God’  (Gen 22:12)

On the other hand, the OV pattern, infrequent as it is, is largely used independently of the source text, as shown in Table 20. Table 20.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Genesis (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Reversing Latin O-V order pronominal main

4 (8.2%)

Adding O

32 (65.3%)   3 (6.1%)

subordinate   5 (11.1%) 30 (66.7%)   3 (6.7%) nominal

Adding V

Free Total translation

0 (0%)

10 (20.4%)

0 (0%)

49

  7 (15.6%)

45

10 (41.7%) 10 (41.7%)

0 (0%)

  1 (4.2%)   3 (12.5%)

24

subordinate   7 (24.1%) 15 (51.7%)

0 (0%)

  1 (3.4%)   6 (20.7%)

29

main

There are few main OV clauses with pronominal objects which follow the original order; 65% are changes from the original VO, as in (78). (78) Ic ðe nu bletsige (OE Genesis, cl. 1628) I you-SG.ACC now bless   benedicam tibi (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1917) bless-1SG you-SG.DAT   ‘I will bless you’  (Gen 22.17)

In subordinate clauses, the position of pronominal objects is equally independent; the Latin VO pattern is changed into OV in 67% of cases, as in (79).

(OE Genesis, cl. 1328) (79) þe læs ðe me ðær gefo sum færlic yfel lest me there seize some unexpected evil  

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 311



ne forte adprehendat me malum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1574) lest perhaps seizes me evil   ‘Lest some evil seize me’  (Gen 19:19)

As far as nominal objects are concerned, the OV pattern is rather infrequently used in all clause types, but most occurrences modify the original order. It should be noted, though, that there is only one non-conjunct declarative, shown in (80), in which the OV pattern (with a fronted object) is used independently. The modified main clauses are mostly conjunct clauses, as in (81). (80) eallum ic gemiltsige for him (OE Genesis, cl. 1216) all I spare for them   dimittam omni loco propter eos (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1431) spare-1SG all place for them   ‘I will spare the whole place for their sake’  (Gen 18:26)

(81) & gyfe ætforan him gemette (OE Genesis, cl. 467) and grace before him found   Noe vero invenit gratiam coram Domino (Lat. Genesis, cl. 499) Noe truly found grace before God   ‘And Noe found grace before God’  (Gen 6:8)

In short, the order of the source text increases the frequency of the VO order in the Genesis translation. Latin interference seems to account for the high proportion of post-verbal pronominal objects in main clauses, as well as the high frequency of post-verbal nominal objects in subordinate clauses. Bede: Table 24 shows how often VO clauses with a simple VP follow or modify the Latin in Bede. Table 21.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Bede (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Reversing Latin O-V order pronominal main subordinate nominal

main

   2 (8.7%)

7 (30.4%)

Adding Free Total V translation 0 (0%)

12 (52.2%)

23

0 (0%)

  1 (50.0%)

 2

  29 (38.2%) 15 (19.7%) 4 (5.3%)   1 (1.3%) 27 (35.5%)

76

0 (0%)

2 (8.7%)

Adding O

  1 (50.0%) 0 (0%)

subordinate   12 (30.8%) 14 (35.9%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%)

13 (33.3%)

39

In VO main clauses, the position of pronominal objects is mostly independent. Modifications are mainly free translations, as shown in (82). (OE Bede, cl. 1787) (82) Ondswarede him mon answered him one  

312 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Responsum est (Lat. Bede, cl. 2009) answered was   ‘He was answered’

It is noteworthy that in Bede, pronominal objects follow the verb in subordinate clauses independently of the Latin source text, as shown in (83), even though the pattern is used only twice in the analysed sample. (83) Þa geðafodan þæt uneaðe þa his gesacan (OE Bede, cl. 1868) when agreed that reluctantly the his opponents   Quod cum aduersarii, inuiti licet, which when opponents unwillingly though concederent (Lat. Bede, cl. 2081–2082) agreed   ‘When his opponents reluctantly consented’

As far as post-verbal nominal objects are concerned, in main clauses, they follow Latin in nearly 40% of cases, as in (84), but free translations have an almost equally high frequency, as in (85), where a passive structure is changed into active by the translator, though the clause-final placement of gemom may be modelled on the source text. (OE Bede, cl. 382) (84) & hi ða edniwedon Godes cyricean and they then repaired God’s churches   renouant ecclesias (Lat. Bede, cl. 510) repaired churches   ‘They repaired God’s churches’

(85) Þa gesomnedon hi gemom (OE Bede, cl. 583) then gathered they assembly   Initum namque est consilium (Lat. Bede, cl. 796) started on the other hand was assembly   ‘Then they gathered an assembly’

In subordinate clauses with nominal objects, the VO order follows Latin in only 30% of cases. Among modifications, changes from the original OV, as in (86), are most commonly observed. (86) se þe hæfde Romana rice (OE Bede, cl. 1710) who had Roman’s power   qui tum Romani regni apicem tenebat (Lat. Bede, cl. 1938) who then Romans’ kingdom crown had   ‘Who was at the head of the Roman power’

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 313



The OV pattern is used in Bede much more frequently and its degree of dependence on the source text is visibly higher, but only with nominal objects, as shown in Table 22. Table 22.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Bede (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Reversing Latin O-V order pronominal main nominal

Adding O

Adding Free Total V translation

13 (29.5%)

2 (4.5%)

18 (40.9%) 0 (0%) 11 (25.0%)

  44

subordinate 15 (35.7%)

1 (2.4%)

18 (42.9%) 0 (0%)   8 (19.0%)

  42

main

57 (66.3%)

5 (5.8%)

4 (4.7%)

0 (0%) 20 (23.3%)

  86

subordinate 75 (70.8%)

4 (3.8%)

3 (2.8%)

0 (0%) 24 (22.6%)

106

The pre-verbal position of pronominal objects in main clauses follows Latin in (only) ca. 30% of cases. Modifications are mostly pronominal objects added by the Bede translator to originally objectless clauses, as in (87). (87) Ic þec halsio (OE Bede, cl. 1030) I you-SG.ACC beseech   Obsecro (Lat. Bede, cl. 1227) beseech-1SG   ‘I beseech you’

Pronominal objects also precede the verb in subordinate clauses mostly independently. Only one third of the clauses follow the order of the source text. Similarly to main clauses, the most common modification is the provision of an additional pronominal object, as in (88). (88) And mid þy ðe he hine þa geseah (OE Bede, cl. 186) and when he him then saw   dum conspiceret (Lat. Bede, cl. 325) when saw-3SG   ‘And when he saw him’

On the contrary, the OV pattern with nominal objects in main clauses depends on the source text in 66% of cases, as in (89). Independent uses are predominantly paraphrases or clauses without any clear source, as in (90). It should be noted that independent uses among main clauses are mostly, but not exclusively, conjunct clauses; 18 out of 29 such clauses contain a coordinating conjunction, as in (90).

(89) & hit þæt gemet þara þrea dihtað (OE Bede, cl. 1066) and it the measure the correction’s dictates  

314 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

et ipsa modum correctionis dictat (Lat. Bede, cl. 1260) and itself measure correction’s dictates   ‘And it dictates the measure of correction’ (90) & sige hæfdan (OE Bede, cl. 468) and victory had   ‘And they were victorious’ magnas hostium strages dedit (Lat. Bede, cl. 678) great enemy’s slaughter gave-3SG   ‘He defeated the enemy with great slaughter’

In the case of OV subordinate clauses with nominal objects, clauses following Latin are in the majority (ca. 71%), as in (91). Modifications, similarly to main clauses, are mostly free translations including clauses without clear sources, as in (92). (91) þeah þe heo wepen ne beran (OE Bede, cl. 1992) though they weapons not bore   quamuis arma non ferant (Lat. Bede, cl. 2216) although weapons not bore   ‘Though they do not bear arms’

(92)

þa he þam cyninge sægde (OE Bede, cl. 1123) when he the king-DAT said   [no clear source] ‘When he said to the king’

On the whole, the particularly high frequency of the OV order in clauses with nominal objects in Bede seems to have been increased by source text interference. Apparently, the influence of Latin is strong enough to blur the distinction between nominal and pronominal objects, which – as a result – both tend to precede the verb in subordinate and conjunct clauses, and both appear equally frequently before and after the verb in non-conjunct main clauses. Luke: In Luke, there is a clear tendency for the VO clauses to follow Latin, as shown in Table 26. Table 23.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Luke (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Reversing Latin O-V order pronominal main nominal

Adding O

Adding V

  89 (74.2%) 15 (12.5%) 11 (9.2%) 3 (2.5%)

Free trans- Total lation   2 (1.7%)

120

subordinate    7 (58.3%)   3 (25.0%)   1 (8.3%) 0 (0%)

  1 (8.3%)

  12

main

11 (8.3%)

133

  2 (6.5%)

  31

102 (76.7%) 15 (11.3%)   3 (2.3%) 2 (1.5%)

subordinate   23 (74.2%)

3 (9.7%)

  3 (9.7%) 0 (0%)



Chapter 7.  The position of objects 315

As far as pronominal objects are concerned, their post-verbal position is modelled on Latin in 74% of main clauses, as in (93). Concerning the infrequent modifications, they are mostly changes from original OV; 12 out of 15 such changes occur in imperative and interrogative clauses, as in (94). (93) hi læddon hyne on Hierusalem (OE Luke, cl. 294) they led him on Jerusalem   tulerunt illum in Hierusalem (Lat. Luke, cl. 299) took him in Jerusalem   ‘They took him to Jerusalem’  (Lk 2:22)

(94) Hwæþer lufode hyne swyðor? (OE Luke, cl. 1221) who loved him more   quis ergo eum plus diliget (Lat. Luke, cl.1310) who then him more loved   ‘Who loved him most?’  (Lk 7:42)

The VO order in subordinate clauses with a pronominal object, atypical as it is, follows Latin in (only) 7 out of 12 cases, as in (95). Most importantly, 3 times the Latin OV order was changed into VO, as in (96), which is quite striking since the source text contains a structure that theoretically fits into the target language perfectly. Still, the translator decided to place the object in the post-verbal position, altering the original order. (OE Luke, cl. 531) (95) forþam ðe he smyrede me because he anointed me   propter quod unxit me (Lat. Luke, cl.608) because anointed me   ‘Because he anointed me’

(OE Luke, cl. 1949) (96) þæt heo fylste me that she helps me   ut me adiuvet (Lat. Luke, cl.2085) that me helps   ‘That she help me’  (Lk 10:40)



The post-verbal position of nominal objects follows Latin VO in ca. 77% of main clauses, though the position of other constituents is often changed, as in (97). In subordinate clauses, the proportions are almost identical: when a nominal object follows the verb, its position is the same as in the source text in ca. 74% of the clauses in question, as in (98). There are only 8 subordinate clauses in which this pattern is used independently; the VO pattern in subordinates seems to be heavily influenced by the source text.

316 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(97) min sawl mærsaþ Drihten (OE Luke, cl. 143) my soul magnifies Lord-ACC   magnificat anima mea Dominum (Lat. Luke, cl.145) magnifies soul my Lord-ACC   ‘My soul magnifies the Lord’  (Lk 1:46)

(98) Þa he genealæhte þære ceastre gate (OE Luke, cl. 1082) when he approached the city’s gate   cum autem adpropinquaret portae civitatis (Lat. Luke, cl.1167) when also approached-3SG gate city’s   ‘When he approached the gate of the city’  (Lk 7:12)



In clauses with pre-verbal objects, the degree of dependence on the source text is much lower, as shown in Table 24. Table 24.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Luke (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Reversing Latin O-V order pronominal main nominal

Adding O

Adding Free Total V translation 5 (7.0%)

71

subordinate 18 (25.0%) 34 (47.2%) 19 (26.4%) 0 (0%)

20 (28.2%) 37 (52.1%)   8 (11.3%) 1 (1.4%)

1 (1.4%)

72

main

1 (2.1%)

3 (6.4%)

47

0 (0%)

5 (8.5%)

59

17 (36.2%) 26 (55.3%)   0 (0%)

subordinate 19 (32.2%) 35 (59.3%)   0 (0%)

In main clauses, pre-verbal pronominal objects follow Latin in only ca. 28% of cases. In the translation process, the Latin VO order was changed into OV in 52% of clauses, as in (99), which points to a relatively high independence of that pattern. (99) þin fæder & ic sarigende þe sohton (OE Luke, cl. 364–365) your father and I sorrowing you-SG sought   ecce pater tuus et ego dolentes quaerebamus behold father your and I sorrowing sought te (Lat. Luke, cl.371–372) you-SG.ACC   ‘Behold your father and I have sought you sorrowing’  (Lk 2:48)

When a pronominal object precedes the verb in a subordinate clause, its position follows Latin in only 25% of cases. Similarly to main clauses, the independent uses are mostly changes from original VO, as in (100). (100) & þæt hig þe mid handum nimon (OE Luke, cl. 510) and that they you-SG.ACC with hands take  

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 317



et quia in manibus tollent te (Lat. Luke, cl.586) and that in hands take-3PL you-SG.ACC   ‘And that they shall take you with their hands’  (Lk 4:11)

When a nominal object appears before the verb in a main clause, it follows the Latin order in (only) 36% of clauses. Modifications include mostly changes from original VO (present in 55% of all cases); 16 out of 26 are found in conjunct clauses, as in (101). (101) & God bletsode (OE Luke, cl. 313) and God-ACC blessed   et benedixit Deum (Lat. Luke, cl.318) and blessed God-ACC   ‘And blessed God’  (Lk 2:28)

When a nominal object appears in the pre-verbal position in a subordinate clause, the proportion of clauses following Latin is also rather low (only 32%), and the position of the object is changed in ca. 59% of cases, as in (102). (102) þæt ða ingangendan leoht geseon (OE Luke, cl. 1324) that the in-going light see   ut intrantes videant lumen (Lat. Luke, cl.1425) that in-going see light   ‘That they who come in may see the light’  (Lk 8:16)

In Luke, similarly to Genesis, the source text is dominated by the VO order and, as a result, the frequency of this pattern is increased in the OE translation. This influence, however, is not strong enough to eliminate the difference in the syntactic behaviour of subordinate and main clauses. Tatian: In Tatian, analysed in Table 25, the VO pattern is mostly modelled on the source text. Table 25.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Tatian (simple VP). Object type Clause type pronominal main

Following Latin

main

Adding O

Adding Free Total V translation

256 (83.9%) 21 (6.9%) 27 (8.9%) 1 (0.3%)

subordinate   18 (100%) nominal

Reversing O-V order   0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

241 (89.6%) 16 (5.9%)   2 (0.7%) 4 (1.5%)

subordinate 114 (95.8%)   3 (2.5%)   2 (1.7%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%)

305

0 (0%)

  18

  6 (2.2%)

269

0 (0%)

119

Post-verbal pronominal objects follow the source text order in ca. 84% of main clauses, as in (103). Still, the pattern is also used independently (which is always

318 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

interesting in Tatian, which is generally close to its Latin source), the object being added or its position changed, as in (104) and (105). (103) Ih quidu íu (OHG Tatian, cl. 1254) I tell you-PL.DAT   Ego autem dico vobis (Lat. Tatian, cl.1237) I also tell you-PL.DAT   ‘I say to you’  (Mt 5:22)

(OHG Tatian, cl. 2434) (104) Her quad iru thó he said her then   At ipse dixit (Lat. Tatian, cl.2393) but he said   ‘But he said to her’  (Lk 8:48)



(OHG Tatian, cl. 1778) (105) inti mít todu uueigent sie and with death afflicts them   et morte eos afficient (Lat. Tatian, cl.1745) and death-ABL them afficts   ‘And shall put them to death’  (Mt 10:21)

When a pronominal object follows the verb in a subordinate clause, it is always modelled on the Latin, as shown in (106), which suggests a very strong native tendency for pronominal objects to precede the verb in a subordinate clause. (106) oba thu nidarfallenti bétos mih (OHG Tatian, cl. 833–834) if you down-falling adore me   si cadens adoraveris me (Lat. Tatian, cl.826–827) if falling down adore-2SG me   ‘If falling down you will adore me’  (Mt 4:9)

Post-verbal nominal objects follow Latin in ca. 90% of main clauses, as in (107). The position of the object is changed only 16 times, as in (108); this, however, is still the most frequent type of modification. (OHG Tatian, cl. 2719) (107) Ih gisah Satanasen   I saw Satan Videbam Satanan (Lat. Tatian, cl.2694) saw-1SG Satan   ‘I saw Satan’  (Lk 10:18) (108) her habet diuual (OHG Tatian, cl. 2665) he has devil  

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 319



demonium habet (Lat. Tatian, cl.2622) devil-ACC has   ‘He has a devil’  (Mt 11:18)

When nominal objects appear post-verbally in subordinate clauses, the Latin equivalent clause follows the same order in 96% of cases, as in (109); the number of modifications is negligible. (109) uuanta ih gisah geist (OHG Tatian, cl. 787) because I saw ghost   quia vidi spiritum (Lat. Tatian, cl.780) because saw-1SG ghost   ‘Because I saw the Spirit’  (Jn 1:32)

The degree of dependence of the OV pattern on the source text depends on clause and object type, as shown in Table 26. Table 26.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Tatian (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Latin pronominal main nominal

Reversing O-V order

  25 (78.1%)   3 (9.4%)

Adding O

Adding Free Total V translation

  3 (9.4%)   1 (3.1%)

0 (0%)

32

subordinate   28 (29.2%)   51 (53.1%)   15 (15.6%)   1 (1.0%)   1 (1.0%)

96

main

43 (100%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

subordinate   33 (75.0%)    9 (20.5%)   2 (4.5%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

43

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

44

Within main clauses with pre-verbal pronominal objects, which are relatively infrequent in the analysed sample, the equivalent Latin clauses use the same order in ca. 78% of all instances, as in (110); there are only 7 clauses following this pattern independently of the source text. (110) inti finstarnessi thaz ni bigriffun (OHG Tatian, cl. 22) and darknesses that not comprehended   et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt (Lat. Tatian, cl.22) and darknesses that not comprehended   ‘And the darkness did not comprehend it’  (Jn 1:5)

There is only one group of objects whose pre-verbal position is mostly independent of the Latin original; these are pre-verbal pronominal objects in subordinate clauses. Only ca. 29% of them follow the Latin, while as many as 51 clauses change the position of the object, as in (111). This is a remarkably high degree of independence for Tatian, which is a very close translation.

320 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(111) thaz siu mir helphe (OHG Tatian, cl. 2580) that she me helps   ut adiuvet me (Lat. Tatian, cl.2537) that helps me   ‘That she help me’  (Lk 10:40)

Nominal objects preceding the verb in main clauses all follow the Latin OV order, as in (112). (112) hér unsara ummaht inphieng (OHG Tatian, cl. 2036) he our weaknesses took   ipse infirmitates nostras accepit (Lat. Tatian, cl.1996) he infermities our took   ‘He took our infirmities’  (Mt 8:17)

When nominal objects appear in the pre-verbal position in subordinate clauses, Latin uses the same pattern in 75% of cases, as in (113). The clauses modifying Latin mostly show changes from the original VO, as in (114). (113) thaz her giuuizscaf sageti fon liohte (OHG Tatian, cl. 629) that he testimony says of light   ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine (Lat. Tatian, cl.625) that testimony says of light   ‘That he gives testimony of the light’  (Jn 1:7)

(114) Thie brut habet (OHG Tatian, cl. 1061) who bride has   (Lat. Tatian, cl.1051) Qui habet sponsam   who has bride ‘Who has a bride’  (Jn 3:29)



On the whole, the tendency towards OV order in subordinate clauses in Tatian is noticeable both with nominal and pronominal objects, even though without looking at the Latin, this could easily be overlooked because subordinates with nominal objects are predominantly VO. In Tatian, subordinates tend to be OV (especially when containing a pronominal object), while main clauses show a strong tendency towards VO (especially with nominal objects); alternative patterns are heavily influenced by the Latin source text. Isidor: In Isidor, the VO pattern is to a great extent modelled on the source text, as shown in Table 27.

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 321



Table 27.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Isidor (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Reversing Latin O-V order

Adding O

Adding Free Total V translation

pronominal main nominal

18 (78.2%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)    5 (21.7%)

23

subordinate   2 (100%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 2

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

  4 (6.1%)

66

subordinate   8 (61.5%)    2 (15.4%)    2 (15.4%) 0 (0%)

  1 (7.7%)

13

main

46 (69.7%)   16 (24.2%)

In main clauses, post-verbal pronominal objects follow the Latin order in ca. 78% of cases, as in (115). All modified clauses are paraphrases or clauses without a clear source, as in (116). (OHG Isidor, cl. 698) (115) Ih saghem dhir you-SG.DAT   I tell adnuntio tibi (Lat. Isidor, cl. 779) say-1SG you-SG.DAT   ‘I tell you’

(116) Zi uuizssanne ist nu uns chiuuisso (OHG Isidor, cl. 93–94) to know is now us truly   Scire autem (Lat. Isidor, cl. 193) know-IMP besides   ‘We should also realise’

The only pattern which is clearly avoided, appearing only twice and having always a direct Latin model, is VO with a pronominal object in subordinate clauses, as in (117). (117) dhazs uuerodheoda druhtin sendida mih zi dhir (OHG Isidor, cl. 247) that army-GEN lord sent me to you-SG   quia dominus exercituum misit me ad te (Lat. Isidor, cl. 341) that lord army-GEN sent me to you-SG   ‘That the lord of the armies sent me to you’

In main clauses, where nominal objects mostly follow the verb, there is a clear Latin model for the VO pattern in 70% of cases, as in (118). Nonetheless, in 24% of clauses, the position of the object is changed from OV, as in (119). (118) Ir sendit sn uuort (OHG Isidor, cl. 303) he sent his word   Mittit uerbum suum (Lat. Isidor, cl. 395) sent-3SG word his   ‘He sent his word’

322 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(119) In dhemu druhtines nemin archennemes chiuuisso in the lord’s name understand-1PL truly fater (OHG Isidor, cl. 298) father   In persona enim domini patrem accipimus (Lat. Isidor, cl. 390) in person also lord’s father understand-1PL   ‘In the name of the lord we truly understand the father’

Nominal objects follow the verb in subordinate clauses in only 13 instances and 8 of them follow the Latin order, as in (120). (120) dhiu chibar blomun, dhen haldendan druhtin (OHG Isidor, cl. 760) who bore flower the saviour lord   quę genuit florem dominum saluatorem (Lat. Isidor, cl. 839) who bore flower lord saviour   ‘Who bore the flower, Lord the Saviour’

Table 31 shows that the OV pattern is used rather independently with pronominal objects. Table 28.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Isidor (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Reversing Latin O-V order Pronominal main

Adding O

Adding Free Total V translation

  5 (35.7%)

3 (21.4%) 5 (35.7%) 0 (0%)

1 (7.1%)

14

subordinate   6 (33.3%)

8 (44.4%) 4 (22.2%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%)

18

0 (0%)

Pronominal main

18 (94.7%)

subordinate 16 (53.3%) 11 (36.7%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (5.3%)

19

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

3 (10.0%)

30

The number of clauses with pronominal objects in Isidor is quite low, but a minority of pre-verbal pronominal objects in main clauses have a direct Latin model. The most frequent modification is addition of the pronominal object, as in (121). (121) Inan dhuo dhanan ni arsluoc got (OHG Isidor, cl. 557) him then then not killed god   deus non occidit (Lat. Isidor, cl. 642) god not killed   ‘Then God did not kill him’

Among OV subordinate clauses with pronominal objects, the OHG follows the Latin in only 6 out of 18 cases. Modifications are mostly changes from the Latin VO, as in (122).



Chapter 7.  The position of objects 323

(122) dhem euuuih biraubodon (OHG Isidor, cl. 220) who-DAT you-PL.ACC robbed   quę expoliauerunt uos (Lat. Isidor, cl. 313) who-DAT plundered you-PL.ACC   ‘Who robbed from you’

When a nominal object precedes the verb in a main clause, all the clauses except for one have a clear Latin model, as in (123). The single clause shown in (124) which somehow modifies the source pattern is classified as a paraphrase because the Latin subject was changed into an object in the OHG translation. However, as its position was retained, Latin influence could be claimed even here. (123) Isaias auh offonor den selbun sunu fona fater gaboranan Isaiah also openly the same son from father born gafestinota (OHG Isidor, cl. 19–20) confirmed   Esaias autem apertius filium a deo genitum confirmans (Lat. Isidor, cl. 107) Isaiah also openly son from god born confirming   ‘Isaiah also confirmed the existence of the son born of the father’

(124) In dhiu auh dhanne, dhazs ir oba dhem uuazsserum suueiboda, in this also then that he over the waters floated (OHG Isidor, cl. 328–329) dhen heilegun gheist dhar bauhnida the holy ghost-ACC there meant   In eo uero, qui superferebatur aquis, spiritus sanctus in this truly which floated waters-ABL spirit holy significatur (Lat. Isidor, cl. 416–417) meant-PASS   ‘In the one that floated over the waters, he meant the Holy Spirit’



When a nominal object precedes the verb in a subordinate clause, around half of the clauses follow the Latin pattern, as in (125). The most common modification is a change to the original position of the object, as in (126). (125) dhanne christ dhes crucis zeihhan chidhuhit when christ the cross’s sign made in iro andinum (OHG Isidor, cl. 808) in their foreheads   quando christus signaculum crucis exprimit when christ sign cross’s made in frontibus eorum (Lat. Isidor, cl. 887) in foreheads theirs   ‘When Christ made the sign of the cross on their foreheads’

324 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(126) Dhuo ir himilo garauui frumida (OHG Isidor, cl. 59) when he heavens’ equipment made   Quando praeparabat cęlos (Lat. Isidor, cl. 161) when made-3SG heavens   ‘When he created heavens’

On the whole, the OV order in main clauses with a nominal object in Isidor appears to be clearly modelled on the source. Therefore, its use cannot be seen as an independent native pattern. Furthermore, the post-verbal placement of pronominal objects (both in main and subordinate clauses) is also strongly influenced by the source text. Physiologus: In Physiologus, the VO pattern is mostly used independently, as shown in Table 32. Table 29.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Physiologus (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Reversing Latin O-V order pronominal main

  4 (36.4%)

subordinate   0 (0%) nominal

main

Adding O

  1 (9.1%)

4 (36.4%)

0 (0%)

3 (100%)

14 (43.8%)    7 (21.9%) 0 (0%)

subordinate   6 (66.7%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Adding Free Total V translation 0 (0%)   2 (18.2%)

11

0 (0%)

 3

0 (0%)

0 (0%) 11 (34.4%)

32

0 (0%)

 9

3 (33.3%)

The post-verbal position of pronominal objects in main clauses is mostly independent of the Latin; only 4 out of 11 clauses follow the original order, as in (127). In 4 cases, the object is provided by the translator, as in (128); this is the most frequent modification, though the numbers are too low for any meaningful generalisations. (127) so fluhet siu in (OHG Phys., cl. 263) then flees she him   fugiet eum (Lat. Phys., cl. 291) flees him   ‘Then she escapes from him’ (128) so beuuard su iz unzin an den tritten tag (OHG Phys., cl. 31) then guards she it until the third day   custodit tribus diebus (Lat. Phys., cl. 26) guards three days   ‘Then she guards it [the cub] for three days’

The number of pronominal objects following the verb in subordinate clauses is also low, but none of them has a Latin source clause with an object, cf. (129).



Chapter 7.  The position of objects 325

(129) unde sprinet imo in den munt (OHG Phys., cl. 102) and springs him in the mouth   insiliet in os corcodrilli (Lat. Phys., cl. 113) leaps in mouth crocodile-GEN   ‘And jumps into the mouth of the crocodile’

In main clauses, a nominal object is mostly placed after the verb, and ca. 44% of them follow the original order, as in (130). Clauses without a clear source or paraphrased, as in (131), are most frequent among the modifications. (130) Daz mere bezeihchenet dise uuerelt (OHG Phys., cl. 217) the sea signifies this world   Mare significat hunc mundum (Lat. Phys., cl. 242) sea signifies this world   ‘The sea signifies this world’ (131) du schef bizeichenent die heiligen boten (OHG Phys., cl. 218) the ships signify the holy people   Naves sunt prophete et apostoli (Lat. Phys., cl. 243) ships are prophets and apostles   ‘The ships signify the holy people’

When a nominal object follows the verb in a subordinate clause, its Latin equivalent uses the same pattern in 6 out of 9 cases, though the translation is usually relatively free, as in (132). (132) daz er uberuuindit alle bimentun (OHG Phys., cl. 49) that he overcomes all scents   ita ut odor istius modo precellat so that scent this only excells omnia aromata et pigmenta (Lat. Phys., cl. 46) all aromas and pigments   ‘So that his scent overcomes all other scents’

The OV order is used in Physiologus almost completely independently of the Latin, as shown in Table 30.

326 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 30.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Physiologus (simple VP). Object type Clause type Following Reversing Latin O-V order

Adding O

pronominal main

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

 0

1 (11.1%)

0 (0%)

5 (55.6%)

 9

nominal

0 (–)

0 (–)

subordinate

0 (0%)

3 (33.3%)

main

0 (0%)

subordinate

3 (20.0%)

Adding Free Total V translation

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (100%)

 2

5 (33.3%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

7 (46.7%)

15

Pre-verbal pronominal objects in subordinate clauses are all independent of the Latin source text. The example shown in (133) is one of the freely translated clauses. (OHG Phys., cl. 124) (133) So daz mermanni daz gesihit when the siren that sees   videntes (Lat. Phys., cl. 133) seeing   ‘When the siren sees that’

Only 2 nominal objects are found in the pre-verbal position in main clauses, and both of them are independent uses, as in (134). (134)

un er hella rouboti (OHG Phys., cl. 111) and he hell plundered   [no clear source] ‘And he destroyed hell’

Nominal objects found in subordinate clauses mostly precede the verb, and few of them follow the original order; the pattern is clearly independent of the source text, as in (135), which is a change from the original VO. (135) daz er sinen munt duoge in den iro (OHG Phys., cl. 230) that he his mouth digs in the her   masculus infert os ejus in feminam (Lat. Phys., cl. 253) male brings in mouth his in female   ‘The male digs his mouth in the female’s mouth’

In short, Physiologus once again turns out to be a very independent translation; only the post-verbal placement of nominal objects in subordinate clauses could be influenced by the source text order.

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 327



7.6.2

Clauses with a complex VP

Genesis: In Genesis, pronominal objects are never post-verbal in clauses with a complex VP, as shown in Table 31 (and earlier in Table 13). Table 31.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Genesis (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Reversing O-V order

Free translation

Total

pronominal

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

 0

    21 (77.8%)

    2 (7.4%)

     4 (14.8%)

27

nominal

In the case of nominal objects, most VO clauses follow the Latin VO, as in (136), though some infrequent modifications have been identified. (136) & ðin wif Sarra sceal habban sunu (OE Genesis, cl. 1154) and your wife Sara shall have son   et habebit filium Sarra uxor tua (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1363) and has son Sara wife your   ‘And Sara your wife shall have a son’  (Gen 18:10)

The OV order is used with both object types; Table 32 shows that the position of pronominal objects is completely independent of the source text. Table 32.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Genesis (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Reversing O-V order

Adding O

Free translation

Total

pronominal

0 (0%)

6 (42.9%)

   1 (7.1%)

7 (50.0%)

14

   2 (20.0%)

1 (10.0%)

0 (0%)

7 (70.0%)

10

nominal

Latin equivalents of OE OV clauses with a pronominal object are either VO or their structure is changed in a substantial way in the translation, as in (137). (137) hit ðe bið mid gode forgolden (OE Genesis, cl. 318) it you-SG.DAT is with good repaid   ‘You shall be repaid with good’  (Gen 4:7) recipies (Lat. Genesis, cl. 318) receive-2.SG   ‘You shall receive’  (Gen 4:7)

The OV pattern with a nominal object is modelled on the Latin in only 2 cases. Modifications are mostly paraphrases or clauses without a clear source, as in (138).

328 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(138) sceolde ic minne broðor healdon? (OE Genesis, cl. 332) shall I my brother watch   ‘Shall I watch over my brother?’  (Gen 4:9) num custos fratris mei sum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 332) whether keeper brother’s my am   ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’  (Gen 4:9)

To sum up, the pre-verbal placement of pronominal objects in clauses with a complex VP in Genesis is an unambiguously native OE phenomenon, while the postverbal position of nominal objects appears to be influenced by the source text to some extent. Bede: In Bede, as shown in Tables 14 and 33, the VO pattern is used only with nominal objects. Table 33.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Bede (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Reversing O-V order

Free translation

Total

pronominal

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

 0

     4 (28.6%)

     8 (57.1%)

     2 (14.3%)

14

nominal

The post-verbal position of nominal objects follows Latin in only 4 cases. In the majority of clauses where the translator modified the original order, the Latin equivalent is OV, as in (139). (139) Ne meaht þu deman Gallia biscopas not may you judge Gaul-GEN bishops buton heora agenre aldorlicnesse (OE Bede, cl. 1200) without their own authority   Ipse autem extra auctoritatem propriam episcopos Galliarum you yourself but outside authority own bishops Gaul-GEN iudicare non poteris (Lat. Bede, cl. 1397) judge not can   ‘But you may not judge the bishops of Gaul without their own authority’

It is noteworthy that the OV pattern used in Bede in clauses with complex VPs is, to a great extent, modelled on the source text, as shown in Table 34.

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 329



Table 34.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Bede (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Reversing O-V order

Adding O

Free translation

Total

pronominal

14 (41.2%)

0 (0%)

    8 (23.5%)

12 (35.3%)

34

nominal

52 (73.2%)

  10 (14.1%)

0 (0%)

  9 (12.7%)

71

Pronominal objects in the pre-verbal position follow Latin in ca. 40% of clauses, as in (140). Modifications are mostly free translations, or cases in which the equivalent Latin clause has no object, as in (141). (OE Bede, cl. 1907) (140) Be hwon magon we ðæt weotan whence may we that know   ‘Et unde hoc possumus probare?’ (Lat. Bede, cl. 2118) and whence that may prove   ‘How may we know’

(141) forþon we him ne sculon biwerigan (OE Bede, cl. 1463) because we him not should prohibit   quia a nobis prohiberi non debet (Lat. Bede, cl. 1703) because by us prohibit-PASS not should   ‘For we shall not prohibit him’

The pre-verbal position of nominal objects corresponds to the Latin order in 73% of cases, as in (142), which means that the pattern is quite heavily influenced by the source text. (142) & sumne dæl þæs weges gefaren hæfdon (OE Bede, cl. 724) and some part the way’s travelled have-3PL   iamque aliquantulum itineris confecissent (Lat. Bede, cl. 935) now little way travelled-3PL   ‘And have travelled some of the way’



In short, Bede’s source text promotes the pre-verbal placement of objects in clauses with complex VPs, just as in clauses with simple VPs, and thus increases the frequency of the OV pattern, both with pronominal and nominal objects. Luke: Table  35 shows that all clauses with a complex VP following the VO order found in Luke are modelled on the Latin, as shown in (143) and (144) for a pronominal and nominal object respectively.

330 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 35.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Luke (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Total

pronominal

1 (100%)

1

nominal

3 (100%)

3

(143) & he wæs bicniende him (OE Luke, cl. 69) and he was making signs them   et ipse erat innuens illis (Lat. Luke, cl. 70) and he was making signs them   ‘And he made signs to them’  (Lk 1:22) (144) And hu miht þu segan þinum breþer (OE Luke, cl. 986) and how might you say your brother-DAT   et quomodo potes dicere fratri tuo (Lat. Luke, cl. 1071) and how may-2SG say brother your-DAT   ‘And how can you say to your brother’  (Lk 6:42)

On the contrary, the OV order proves to be more independent, as indicated in Table 36. Table 36.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Luke (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Reversing O-V order

Adding O

Free translation

Total

pronominal

11 (30.6%)

19 (52.8%)

   5 (13.9%)

  1 (2.8%)

36

nominal

  5 (50.0%)

  5 (50.0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

10

A minority of OV clauses with a pronominal object follow the source text. Among the modifications, the most numerous ones are changes from Latin VO, as in (145). (145) þe synt þine synna forgyfenne (OE Luke, cl. 1247) you-SG.DAT are your sins forgiven   remittuntur tibi peccata (Lat. Luke, cl. 1337) forgive-PASS you-SG.DAT sins   ‘Your sins are forgiven you’  (Lk 7:48)

Exactly half of the OV clauses with nominal objects follow the original order, as in (146), while all 5 modifications are changes from original VO, as in (147). (146) mæg se blinda þæne blindan lædan (OE Luke, cl. 979) may the blind the blind-ACC lead   numquid potest caecus caecum ducere (Lat. Luke, cl. 1064) QUEST may blind blind-ACC lead   ‘Can the blind lead the blind?’  (Lk 6:39)

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 331



(147) And þæt folc wæs Zachariam geanbidiende (OE Luke, cl. 62) and the people was Zachary awaiting   et erat plebs expectans Zacchariam (Lat. Luke, cl. 63) and was people awaiting Zachary   ‘And the people were waiting for Zachary’  (Lk 1:21)



In sum, the post-verbal placement of both pronominal and nominal objects in Luke is completely modelled on the source text order, while the OV pattern seems to be rather independent. Tatian: In Tatian, as shown in Table 37, all instances of the VO order, both with a pronominal and a nominal object, follow the original Latin order, cf. (148) and (149). Table 37.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Tatian (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Total

pronominal

  6 (100%)

 6

nominal

15 (100%)

15

(148) thaz giquetan uúas then altun (OHG Tatian, cl. 1250) that said was the old-DAT   quia dictum est antiquis (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1233) that said was old-DAT   ‘That it was said to them of old’  (Mt 5:21) (149) bithiu uuanta giboran ist îu hiutu Heilant (OHG Tatian, cl. 368) because born is you-PL.DAT today Saviour   quia natus est vobis hodie salvator (Lat. Tatian, cl. 366) because born is you-PL.DAT today Saviour   ‘For this day is born to you a Saviour’  (Lk 2:11)

The degree of dependence of the OV order on the source text varies according to object type, cf. Table 38. Table 38.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Tatian (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Reversing O-V order

Adding O

Total

pronominal

  7 (24.1%)

15 (51.7%)

   7 (24.1%)

29

nominal

11 (84.6%)

  2 (15.4%)

0 (0%)

13

The OV order with pronominal objects follows Latin in a minority of cases. Independent uses are mostly changes from original VO, as in (150).

332 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(150) inti uuârun imo folgente (OHG Tatian, cl. 872) and were him following   et secuti fuerant eum (Lat. Tatian, cl. 865) and following were him   ‘And followed him’  (Jn 1:40)

The OV order with nominal objects mostly follows Latin, as in (151); there are only 2 modifications and both involve a change from Latin VO. (151) Nioman ni mag zuuein herron thionon (OHG Tatian, cl. 1505) no one not may two masters serve   Nemo potest duobus dominis servire (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1479) no one may two masters serve   ‘No man can serve two masters’  (Mt 6:24)



In short, the post-verbal placement of both pronominal and nominal objects in Tatian follows the order of the source text in all the cases. In the OV pattern, pronominal objects are used rather independently, while the position of nominal objects most often corresponds to the Latin order. Isidor: In clauses with complex VPs in Isidor, the VO pattern is very infrequent. It is completely non-existent with pronominal objects, while both occurrences with nominal objects follow the Latin, cf. (152). Table 39.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Isidor (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Total

pronominal

0 (–)

0

     2 (100%)

2

nominal

(152) endi mn zesuua uuas mezssendi himila (OHG Isidor, cl. 353) and my right was measuring heavens   et dextera mea mensa est cęlos (Lat. Isidor, cl. 444) and right mine measuring was heavens   ‘And my right hand was measuring heavens’

On the other hand, as shown in Table 40, the OV pattern is quite independent. Table 40.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Isidor (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Reversing O-V order

Adding O

Free translation

Total

pronominal

5 (35.7%)

7 (50.0%)

   2 (14.3%)

0 (0%)

14

nominal

1 (11.1%)

4 (50.0%)

0 (0%)

   3 (37.5%)

 8

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 333



OV clauses with a pronominal object follow the Latin order in only one third of all instances. Among the independent uses, there are (relatively) numerous changes from VO, as in (153). (153) Chindh uuirdit uns chiboran (OHG Isidor, cl. 427) child was us born   Paruolus, inquit, natus est nobis (Lat. Isidor, cl. 512–513) child said born was us   ‘A child was born to us’

What is more, the OV pattern with nominal objects seems very independent, as there is only one clause with a clear Latin model. Modifications include changes from VO, as in (154), as well as some paraphrases. (154) Odho mahti angil so sama so got mannan or could angel like god man-ACC chifrumman? (OHG Isidor, cl. 180) create   Aut numquid angelus cum deo potuit facere hominem? (Lat. Isidor, cl. 274) or whether angel with god may make man-ACC   ‘Or could an angel create man just like God?’

On the whole, the VO order in clauses with a complex VP, rare as it is in Isidor, always follows the original order just as in Luke and Tatian, while the OV order is rather independent. Physiologus: Interestingly, even though the VO pattern does not appear independently either in Tatian or in Isidor, in Physiologus, all 3 cases representing this structure modify the original order, as shown in Table 41 and illustrated in (155). Table 41.  Relation to Latin in VO clauses in Physiologus (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Reversing O-V order

Free translation

Total

pronominal

0 (–)

0 (–)

0 (–)

0

  0 (0%)

     1 (33.3%)

     2 (66.7%)

3

nominal

(155) so uuir uuellen drinkan daz geistliche uuazzer (OHG Phys., cl. 257) when we will drink the holy water   quando veniamus aquam bibere (Lat. Phys., cl. 286–287) when go-1PL water drink   ‘When we want to drink the holy water’

334 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 42.  Relation to Latin in OV clauses in Physiologus (complex VP). Object type

Following Latin

Reversing O-V order

Free translation

Total

pronominal

2 (66.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (33.3%)

3

nominal

1 (25.0%)

   1 (25.0%)

2 (50.0%)

4

There are only 3 clauses with a pronominal object and a complex VP in Physiologus; all of these objects precede the lexical verb, two of them following Latin, as in (156), and one having no clear Latin source. (OHG Phys., cl. 78) (156) daz imo niman geuolgen nemag that him no one follow not-may   atque nullus venatorum eum capere potest (Lat. Phys., cl. 84) but non hunters-GEN him catch can   ‘So that no hunter could follow him’

Nominal objects found in the OV pattern follow Latin in only one case; other uses are independent, as in (157). (OHG Phys., cl. 256) (157) Den uurm sculen uuir biledon the worm-ACC should we follow   Imitemus et nos hujuscemodi draconem (Lat. Phys., cl. 284) imitate-IMP and we this snake   ‘We should follow [the example of] this snake’

The frequency of clauses with a complex VP containing an object in Physiologus is too low to allow for significant generalisations. The most interesting observation, however, is that the VO order, which is never used in the other OHG translations without a clear Latin model, is used 3 times in this text independently of the source. 7.6.3

Summary of Latin influence

As shown in the previous sections, the direction of source text influence is not the same in all the texts. In the biblical translations (Genesis, Luke and Tatian), the VO order is more frequent in the Latin original, increasing the frequency of the VO pattern in the target texts (see Table  43, which summarises the results for clauses with a simple VP, showing the proportion of independently used VO and OV patterns).

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 335



Table 43.  Clauses with modified object positions in the OV and VO pattern (simple VP). Text

Modified OV

Total OV

Modified VO

Total VO

Total modifications

Genesis

121 (82.3%)

147

80 (22.3%)

359

201

Bede

118 (42.4%)

278

97 (69.3%)

140

215

Luke

175 (70.3%)

249

75 (25.3%)

296

250

Tatian

  86 (40.0%)

215

82 (11.5%)

711

168

Isidor

  36 (44.4%)

  81

30 (28.8%)

104

  66

Physiologus

  23 (88.5%)

  26

31 (56.4%)

  55

  54

On the other hand, the OV order is predominantly independent in Genesis and Luke, and less dependent than VO in Tatian. In Bede, on the contrary, it is the VO order which is more independent, with OV clauses mostly modelled on the source text. In Isidor and Physiologus, both patterns are used rather independently of the source text. In clauses with a complex VP, the results for the OE translations are similar: the OV order is used rather independently in Genesis and Luke, while in Bede, it follows the original; and vice versa for the VO order. However, in the OHG translations, Isidor and Tatian never use the VO order independently of the original, while Physiologus does. The OV order is rather independent in all the OHG texts, including Tatian. Table 44.  Proportions of OV and VO clauses with modified element order (complex VP). Text

Modified OV

Total OV

Modified VO

Total VO

Total modifications

Genesis

22 (91.7%)

  24

    6 (22.2%)

27

28

Bede

39 (37.1%)

105

   10 (71.4%)

14

49

Luke

30 (65.2%)

  46

0 (0%)

 4

30

Tatian

24 (57.1%)

  42

0 (0%)

21

24

Isidor

16 (72.7%)

  22

0 (0%)

 2

16

Physiologus

  4 (57.1%)

   7

   3 (100%)

 3

 7

In short, the degree of correspondence between the order of the source and target texts to a great extent depends on which order (OV or VO) actually dominates in the Latin source text. Since the Latin version of Bede is to a great extent V-final, and therefore dominated by the OV order, the use of VO in the OE version is usually a modification; when the OV pattern is employed, it simply follows the Latin order. On the other hand, the Latin Vulgate is predominantly V-initial and consequently VO; hence, the tendency is the reverse. Table 45 shows that the

336 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

proportions between OV and VO are different in clauses modifying and following the original order. Table 46.  Differences between clauses following and modifying source text order (simple VP). Text

Clauses modifying Latin

Clauses following Latin

OV

VO

Total

OV

VO

Total

Genesis

121 (60.2%)

80 (39.8%)

201

26 (8.5%)

279 (91.5%)

305

Bede

118 (54.9%)

97 (45.1%)

215

160 (78.8%)

  43 (21.2%)

203

Luke

175 (70.0%)

75 (30.0%)

250

  74 (25.1%)

221 (74.9%)

295

Tatian

  86 (51.2%)

82 (48.8%)

168

129 (17.0%)

629 (83.0%)

758

Isidor

  36 (54.5%)

30 (45.5%)

  66

  45 (37.8%)

  74 (62.2%)

119

Physiologus

  23 (42.6%)

31 (57.4%)

  54

   3 (11.1%)

  24 (88.9%)

  27

In all the biblical translations (Genesis, Luke, Tatian), OV is the more frequent order in clauses modifying Latin, whereas in clauses following Latin, the VO pattern is dominant. A similar, though much weaker, tendency is recognisable in Isidor, while in Bede, OV is more frequent in both groups, and, in clauses following Latin, its frequency is considerably higher. In Physiologus, on the other hand, VO is more frequent in both groups, and its frequency is higher in clauses following the source text order. In general, the discussion in this section has shown that most of the atypical structures found in the translations indeed follow the Latin order, though direct Latin influence cannot explain all such cases, at least not in all of the texts. 7.7 Summary and conclusions The previous sections of this chapter have shown that there are differences between the analysed translations as far as the position of objects is concerned. In order to assess the relative strength of all the factors considered in our analysis, i.e. object type, clause type and Latin order, decision trees have been generated for all the texts under investigation. The following variables were included by the classifier: a. object type: pronominal or nominal b. clause type: main or subordinate c. Latin order: OV, VO, no O, no V or other (when the OE/OHG clause is a paraphrase of the Latin clause or has no clear source)



Chapter 7.  The position of objects 337

The tree which models the choice between OV and VO in Genesis shows that the main factor which is the basis for the primary split is object type, with nominal objects typically following the verb regardless of clause type.

object_type = PRONOMINAL | clause_type = MAIN | | Latin_order = no O: VO (14.0/3.0) | | Latin_order = OV: VO (10.0/4.0) | | Latin_order = VO: VO (76.0/36.0) | | Latin_order = other: OV (12.0/1.0) | clause_type = SUBORDINATE: OV (55.0/2.0) object_type = NOMINAL: VO (390.0/64.0)5

With pronominal objects, clause type comes into play: the object precedes the verb in subordinate clauses, whereas in main clauses, its position depends on the Latin order, with the VO pattern in the source text clearly promoting the same order in the target text (quite unexpectedly, the Latin OV order also promotes the use of VO, but the numbers are much lower and, therefore, less convincing). Thus, the decision tree confirms that the position of pronominal objects in main clauses in Genesis is influenced by the Latin source text, while in other syntactic contexts, the position of objects depends on the native variables, i.e. clause and object type. In Bede, unlike in Genesis, the main split in the decision tree is between the source text orders, which points to a greater dependence of this translation on the Latin original as far as object position is concerned.

Latin_order = no O: OV (67.0/13.0) Latin_order = no V: VO (2.0) Latin_order = OV: OV (250.0/34.0) Latin_order = VO: VO (67.0/21.0) Latin_order = other | clause_type = MAIN | | object_type = NOMINAL: VO (51.0/23.0) | | object_type = PRONOMINAL: OV (24.0/11.0) | clause_type = SUBORDINATE: OV (60.0/14.0)6

The Latin OV order, in the great majority of cases, corresponds to the OV pattern in the target text. The reverse tendency (Latin VO promoting OE VO) is also 5.  The precision and recall rates observed for the 171 instances of OV patterns were 0.848 and 0.392 respectively. The 386 VO patterns were recognized with 0.782 precision and 0.969 recall. 6.  OV class: precision 0.815, recall 0.862 (383 instances). VO class: precision 0.598, recall 0.513 (159 instances).

338 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

observable, though less reliable because of lower numbers (cf. precision and recall for the VO class). It is also interesting to note that only in the Latin ‘other’ pattern (i.e. Latin clause with a completely different structure or no clear Latin source) are native OE tendencies reflected in the tree: subordinate clauses are mostly OV, while in main clauses, nominal objects are mainly post-verbal and pronominal objects are mostly pre-verbal. Thus, Bede comes across as relatively dependent on the Latin source, though with the native variables having (some) influence on the position of objects in the translation. The decision tree generated for Luke is different from the trees for Genesis and Bede: the primary split is into clause types:

clause_type = MAIN | Latin_order = no O: VO (24.0/10.0) | Latin_order = no V: VO (7.0/2.0) | Latin_order = OV: OV (78.0/30.0) | Latin_order = VO: VO (274.0/80.0) | Latin_order = other | | object_type = NOMINAL: VO (14.0/3.0) | | object_type = PRONOMINAL: OV (7.0/2.0) clause_type = SUBORDINATE: OV (192.0/44.0)7

Furthermore, in subordinate clauses, there is no split between nominal and pronominal objects, as both types have a strong tendency towards the pre-verbal position (unlike in Genesis, where nominal objects prefer the post-verbal position in all clause types, and unlike in Bede, where the source clause order has the strongest influence). In main clauses, the main sub-split is between various Latin orders, with the OV pattern in the source text promoting the pre-verbal position and the VO pattern promoting the alternative position. Just as in Bede, when the clause is a paraphrase or has no clear source (‘other’ pattern), object type becomes decisive, though the number of such clauses is rather low. The decision tree generated for Tatian clearly, and rather unsurprisingly, shows the high dependence of the text on Latin.

Latin_order = no O | clause_type = SUBORDINATE | | object_type = NOMINAL: VO (3.0/1.0) | | object_type = PRONOMINAL: OV (20.0) | clause_type = MAIN: VO (35.0/6.0)

7.  OV class: precision 0.709, recall 0.676 (296 instances). VO class: precision 0.694, recall 0.727 (300 instances).

Chapter 7.  The position of objects 339





Latin_order = no V | object_type = NOMINAL: VO (5.0) | object_type = PRONOMINAL: OV (3.0/1.0) Latin_order = OV: OV (186.0/40.0) Latin_order = VO | clause_type = SUBORDINATE | | object_type = NOMINAL: VO (130.0/11.0) | | object_type = PRONOMINAL: OV (78.0/22.0) | clause_type = MAIN: VO (522.0/13.0) Latin_order = other: VO (7.0/1.0)8

Nonetheless, whenever the tree splits into clause types (which happens when the Latin source clause has no expressed object (‘no O’) and when it follows the VO pattern), VO order is always preferred in main clauses, while in subordinate clauses, the order depends on object type (unlike in OE, where object type is more important in main clauses). It should also be noted that when the tree splits into object types, pronominal objects always favour the pre-verbal position and nominal objects – the post-verbal position, which corresponds to the same tendency visible in the OE data. The Latin OV pattern, promoting the pre-verbal object position in OHG, is the only order in which the native tendencies are not recognisable. The pruned decision tree generated for Isidor is almost the same as for Luke, as shown below.

clause_type = clause_type = | Latin_order | Latin_order | Latin_order | Latin_order

SUBORDINATE: OV (70.0/15.0) MAIN = NO O: OV (8.0/1.0) = OV: OV (40.0/14.0) = VO: VO (76.0/10.0) = other: VO (12.0/3.0)9

Subordinate clauses follow the OV order regardless of the Latin, while in main clauses, the Latin OV order favours the pre-verbal position, and the Latin VO order promotes the post-verbal position of the object (regardless of its type). It is noteworthy that object type does not appear in the tree at any point. The decision tree for Physiologus is very simple: the only factor which is included by the model is clause type, as shown below. 8.  OV class: precision 0.774, recall 0.867 (256 instances). VO class: precision 0.952, recall 0.911 (733 instances). 9.  OV class: precision 0.728, recall 0.806 (103 instances). VO class: precision 0.792, recall 0.71 (107 instances).

340 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations



clause_type = SUBORDINATE: OV (42.0/13.0) clause_type = MAIN: VO (49.0/4.0)10

Thus, the tree confirms our earlier observations that the position of objects in Physiologus is independent of the source text. In short, the analysis presented in this chapter has shown that, in all the texts, main and subordinate clauses demonstrate significantly different patterns, with main clauses showing a clear preference for VO (this preference is more clearly observable with nominal objects in Luke, Isidor and Physiologus; in Tatian, object type does not influence the frequency of the pattern in such a way); subordinate clauses using the OV pattern more often (especially with pronominal objects). The applied linear regression model shows that while clause type is a significant factor in all the texts, object type is less significant in Bede and completely without significance in Physiologus. What is more, while all the texts exhibit statistically confirmed native tendencies, in all of them, except Physiologus, source text interference of varying strength may be identified. It is also interesting that in Genesis and Bede, the difference between main and subordinate clauses is less pronounced compared to the other texts: in Genesis, all clause types tend to be VO (except for subordinates with a pronominal object), while in Bede, all clauses show a strong tendency towards OV (though in non-conjunct declaratives the patterns are more balanced because of the high frequency of V-1, while conjunct clauses and subordinates are predominantly OV both with pronominal and nominal objects). This seems to be caused by the differing influence of the source texts: the Latin Vulgate prefers the VO pattern, while the Latin Bede is predominantly OV. Therefore, source text influence seems to be responsible for this unexpected (though definitely not complete) levelling of patterns across clause types. It is especially interesting to note that Luke, which is also based on the VO-dominated Vulgate Bible, manages to retain the distinction in the position of objects between main and subordinate clauses, while Genesis somehow loses this distinction in the translation process; here, the only pattern which is used contrary to the Latin original is the OV order with a pronominal object in subordinates. (This, in turn, shows that this pattern must have been quite robust in late OE.) As far as differences between OE and OHG are concerned, we may conclude that OHG main clauses are VO regardless of object type, while in OE, the preferred pattern depends on object type and is more sensitive to Latin influence. Another general difference between OE and OHG, which seems to characterise all 10.  OV class: precision 0.69, recall 0.879 (33 instances). VO class: precision 0.918, recall 0.776 (58 instances).



Chapter 7.  The position of objects 341

the texts except for Physiologus, is the behaviour of objects in clauses with a complex verb phrase. While in OE only pronominal objects consistently precede the lexical verb, and nominal objects may be placed both before and after it, in OHG, all objects occur in the pre-verbal position, and all cases of VO follow Latin. The fact that there are a few clauses in Physiologus which deviate from this otherwise clear tendency should probably be ascribed to the diachronic difference between early and late OHG syntax. It is clear that the discrepancy in question is not caused by Latin influence. All in all, the OHG translations seem much more uniform as far as object position is concerned than the OE texts. This is a surprising finding since the variability in the OE data seems to have been caused by Latin influence, so rarely considered as an important factor in studies of OE syntax.

Chapter 8

Translation strategies 8.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to look at the data collected in our corpus from a new perspective. So far, we have analysed various element order patterns found in the OE and OHG target texts and checked which of them follow the order of the source texts. This chapter shows how the translators dealt with various Latin structures, and what translation strategies were employed for translating element order patterns both typical and atypical in the target languages. We believe that analysing which patterns are regularly changed and which are mostly, or at least partly, retained may provide important insights into OE and OHG element order. In general, the translators were confronted with two extreme situations. Firstly, when the Latin clause followed a pattern which was perfectly grammatical and natural in OE or OHG. Then, the original order could be retained without any danger of producing an unclear or linguistically incorrect translation. Secondly, the Latin original could follow a pattern which, if translated word for word or phrase for phrase, would produce a completely ungrammatical OE or OHG clause. In such situations, the translator had to think of an optimal strategy for changing or modifying the original clause. However, an intermediate situation is also possible, i.e. if the Latin pattern was also used in the target language, though generally infrequent in a given syntactic context. Then, the translator had to decide whether the structure should be changed into a more frequent (and thus more natural) pattern or if the original order should be retained, which, in turn, would unnaturally increase the frequency of generally rare patterns, resulting in the ‘quantitative loan syntax’ phenomenon discussed in Lippert (1974). The situation in which a translator is confronted with a structure which is not ungrammatical in the target language is also discussed in Taylor (2008), which is one of the few studies on the impact of Latin on OE translations. Taylor (2008) observes that such studies usually focus on constructions whose native status is questioned (such as the dative absolute or accusativus cum infinitivo): Less often addressed is the effect that contact might have on indisputably native constructions. In these cases, no borrowing is involved; rather, the effect would be statistical, resulting in higher or lower frequencies of certain syntactic variants in translations versus original English texts. (Taylor 2008: 341)

344 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

According to the same author, the influence of the target texts on the translations may be both direct (when a translator, faced with a particular structure, reproduces it in the target text) and indirect, where the translator “produces a higher frequency of a particular variant in the target, regardless of whether there is a matching structure in the source” (Taylor 2008: 342), which suggests some form of syntactic priming. In our analysis, we focus mostly on the potential direct influence of the source clauses, but the possibility of indirect influence is also taken into consideration, even though it is more difficult to account for in the absence of reliable non-translated texts which could function as a point of reference for the OHG material (as discussed in detail in Chapter 2). However, it is also impossible to claim that OE original prose is completely free of Latin influence. As noted by Scheler (1961): Als sich die christlichen Übersetzer Altenglands an die Arbeit machten, einen Teil der lateinischen Kirchenliteratur in ihre Muttersprache zu übertragen, besaβ das Altenglische noch keine Prosa, and der sie ihren Stil hätten schulen können. Der parataktisch-einfache ae. Satzbau reichte nicht aus, die prägnante nominale Ausdrucksweise der Vorlagen wirkungsvoll wiederzugeben. So ahmten sie, speziell in den sich eng an die lateinischen Quellen haltenden Übersetzungstexten, den lateinischen Satzbau nach, übernahmen aber auch einen Teil der entlehnten Konstruktionen in die freiere Übersetzungsliteratour und stellenweise sogar in das heimische Schrifttum. (Scheler 1961: 103) [When the Anglo-Saxons started to translate religious literature from Latin into their mother tongue, Old English had no literary tradition of prose writing and they could not model their style on any previous works. The simple paratactic clause structure was not enough to render the full meaning of the complex style of the original. Thus, they copied Latin syntax, especially in translations that were very closely related to the source text, but they also used some of the borrowed structures in free translations, and sometimes introduced them into their native writing.]

Thus, apart from direct and indirect source text influence, we also cannot exclude the possibility of Latin influence on a more general level: both OE and OHG translators must have known Latin and appreciated it as a model of style. As a result, they might have used Latin-inspired structures in their OE/OHG original writings (scarce as they are in the latter case), but this kind of influence is impossible to control and measure. Therefore, in the analysis, we stick to direct and indirect influence (with the main focus on the former), though it must be borne in mind that this division does not cover the full potential of Latin influence on both languages under investigation.



Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 345

What is more, in the present chapter, we take into consideration a new factor which has been hinted at in some of the analytical chapters, but whose full influence on our data is investigated here: the degree of phraseological equivalence between the source texts and their translations. Phraseological studies show that a considerable number of syntactic phrases, clauses or even sentences which at some point come into existence as compositional constructions analogous to morphological ‘nonce-formations’ (Bauer 1983) gradually become established through re-use by members of a linguistic community (Skandera 2007; Granger & Meunier 2008). In the process of conventionalisation, recurrent word combinations, most generally referred to as ‘phraseological units’ (Cowie 1998), ‘phrasemes’ (Mel’čuk 2001) or ‘formulaic sequences’ (Wray 2002), may lose some of their semantic transparency and syntactic flexibility, which is especially interesting in an element order study. Until recently, the common view was that such fixed combinations belong to the largely idiosyncratic lexicon and that the recall of ready-made formulaic sequences from memory, especially at the level of clauses and sentences is “a factor of minute importance in ordinary use of language” (Chomsky 1964: 1). The status of prefabricated units of language was granted mainly to pure idioms, which are considered to “form the end-point of a process by which word-combinations first establish themselves through constant re-use, then undergo figurative extension and finally petrify or congeal” (Cowie et al. 1993: xii). This view has been significantly revised in corpus-based phraseological research, which has revealed that a much wider spectrum of prefabrication processes operates on a larger than previously thought scale in both spoken and written language. It is currently more readily accepted that phraseological units are commonplace in language and that they impose an underlying rigidity on speakers’ and writers’ lexical and syntactic choices despite a rich superficial variation (Sinclair 1991). Some of the earliest studies of formulaicity were conducted by literary scholars investigating ancient verse, who defined ‘formulas’ as groups of words “regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea” (Parry 1930: 80). Such fixed formulas were consequently described as one of the characteristic features of certain types of traditional oral and written poetry (Lord 2000). For example, it is estimated that about twenty percent of Homer’s Iliad is “composed of lines wholly repeated from one place to another” (Page 1976: 223). Similar observations have been made about Anglo-Saxon verse. Capek (1970: 357) identifies the expression æfter þam wordum and its close variants as formulas which can be found in a number of Old English poems including Andreas, Beowulf and Exodus. The “recurrence (...) of an appreciable number of formulas or formulaic phrases” in Anglo-Saxon poetry has led to speculations about their ‘oral’ rather than ‘lettered’ origin (Magoun 1953).

346 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

These general considerations of the incidence of formulaicity in ancient and contemporary texts are relevant to the present discussion of the strategies employed by the translators of the Latin texts in question. As already signalled, in addition to being semantically ‘petrified’, many recurrent phraseological units are also syntactically restricted, in that their lexical constituents follow a fixed order. Depending on their function, fixed multiword sequences can be particularly frequent in a given text or genre. Translators who recognise phraseological units in the source texts may have chosen to maintain a degree of phraseological equivalence between the source and target texts analysed in this study. Therefore, it is important to consider source text formulaicity as a possible factor contributing to the regularity of certain element order patterns observed in the translations. 8.2 Research questions The specific questions which are addressed in this chapter can be phrased as follows: a. What are the syntactic properties of the source texts and how do the differences between them influence the element order of the target texts? b. How often and under what circumstances are selected structures / element order patterns retained or modified by the translators? c. Do the Latin source texts in the corpus contain recurrent word sequences that follow fixed element order patterns and are these sequences translated into lexically regular OE and OHG equivalents? d. Do the discovered translation strategies explain (some of) the differences between the target texts identified in Chapters 3–7? From the point of view of the whole study, the last research question is crucial since it is directly linked to one of the main aims of our study, i.e. filtering out text-specific features of the OE and OHG translations which should be treated as the result of source text interference. The choice of Latin structures or element order patterns which are analysed in the chapter is naturally limited to those which could shed some light on the results obtained in the previous chapters. We decided to focus specifically on the translation of non-finite clauses (with special attention to absolute constructions as a perfect example of an ‘inconvenient’ structure), V-initial and V-final clauses (which surface as the most frequent patterns in some of the source texts and their word for word rendering would be very atypical in certain clause types) as well as recurrent sequences, which may increase the frequency of various patterns in the target texts.

Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 347



8.3 Syntax of the source texts. Classifying Latin element order patterns. The source texts included in our database were syntactically annotated in the same way as the target texts, and thus their syntactic properties may be analysed in the same way. Table 1 shows the proportions of the main clause types: finite, non-finite and elliptical, i.e. without a finite verb form, as in (1), (2) and (3) respectively. Table 1.  Distribution of various clause types in the source texts. Text

finite

non-finite

elliptical

total

Genesis

2076 (88.2%)

171 (7.3%)

108 (4.6%)

2355

Bede

1546 (66.0%)

  454 (27.0%)

165 (7.0%)

2343

Luke

1635 (78.2%)

  353 (16.9%)

104 (5.0%)

2092

Tatian

2369 (79.5%)

  449 (15.1%)

162 (5.4%)

2980

Isidor

  669 (74.2%)

  125 (16.2%)

  87 (9.6%)

  902

Physiologus

  228 (76.5%)

   45 (15.1%)

  25 (8.4%)

  298

(1) cum facta est fames magna in omni terra1 (Lat. Luke, cl. 639) when done was famine great in all earth   ‘When there was a great famine throughout all the earth’  (Lk 4:25) (2) Et confestim surgens coram illis (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2171) and immediately rising before them   ‘And immediately rising up before them’  (Lk 5:25) (3) et haec nomina filiorum eius and these names children his in vocabulis et generationibus suis (Lat. Genesis, cl. 2287) in calling and generations their   ‘And these are the names of his children according to their calling and generations’  (Gen 25:13)

Table 1 shows quite clearly that the proportion of non-finite clauses in the source texts is very diverse; it ranges from only ca. 7% in Genesis to 27% in Bede, which is an exceptionally high result compared to all the other texts, in which non-finite clauses constitute ca. 15–17% of all clauses. What is more, finite clauses are quite diversified and the dominant position of the finite verb is text-specific, as shown in Table 2. 1.  In examples of finite clauses shown in this chapter, the finite verb form is underlined; in nonfinite clauses the non-finite form is underlined. If the position of the subject is relevant for the discussion, the subject is shown in bold.

348 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 2.  Distribution of finite verb positions in the source texts. Text

V-1

V-1 final

V-2

V-2 final

V-final

other

Total

Genesis

865 (41.7%)

149 (7.2%)

  536 (25.8%)

201 (9.7%)

129 (6.2%)

196 (9.4%)

2076

Bede

159 (10.3%)

116 (7.5%)

134 (8.7%)

  244 (15.8%)

  705 (45.6%)

  188 (12.2%)

1546

Luke

513 (31.4%)

151 (9.2%)

  443 (27.1%)

  202 (12.4%)

  176 (10.8%)

150 (9.2%)

1635

Tatian

712 (30.1%)

228 (9.6%)

  603 (25.5%)

  255 (10.8%)

  263 (11.1%)

  308 (13.0%)

2369

Isidor

137 (20.5%)

  43 (6.4%)

  121 (18.1%)

   82 (12.3%)

  190 (28.4%)

   96 (14.3%)

  669

Physiologus

  59 (25.9%)

  14 (6.1%)

   49 (21.5%)

  22 (9.6%)

   40 (17.5%)

   44 (19.3%)

  228

The element order patterns were analysed on the basis of the surface position of the finite verb; conjunctions, interjections and vocatives were treated as extra-clausal elements with no influence on the classification. Thus, all the clauses were classified as V-1, V-2, V-final or ‘other’, i.e. V-late clauses excluding V-final ones, where the verb is not in the first, second or final position, but somewhere in between. This means that we used element order labels generally applied for the study of Germanic languages to Latin in order to establish which Latin clauses functioned as clear models for certain OE/OHG element order patterns. This, of course, does not mean that we assume the existence of the same rules of element order in our source and target texts. Two examples of Latin V-1 clauses, with and without a conjunction, are shown in (4) and (5). (Lat. Genesis, cl. 24) (4) dixit vero Deus said truly God   ‘God truly said’  (Gen 1:9) (Lat. Genesis, cl. 326) (5) et ait Dominus ad Cain to Cain   and said Lord ‘And the Lord said to Cain’  (Gen 4:9)

If a clause is very short, i.e. it consists only of a finite verb, or a conjunction followed by a finite verb, it was classified as a separate category, i.e. V-1 final, as in (6) and (7). (6) contigit (Lat. Bede, cl. 78) happened-3SG   ‘It happened’



Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 349

(7) ut fertur (Lat. Bede, cl. 75) in order that speak of-3SG.PASS   ‘So that it is said’

Clauses with the finite verb in the second position were also classified separately because they functioned as direct models for the V-2 pattern. Both clauses with and without a conjunction were included here, with at least one constituent following the finite verb, as in (8) and (9). (8) ego sum Gabrihel (Lat. Luke, cl. 53) I am Gabriel   ‘I am Gabriel’  (Lk 1:19) (9) et confestim stetit fluxus sanguinis eius (Lat. Luke, cl. 1569) and immediately stopped stream blood her   ‘And immediately the flow of her blood stopped’  (Lk 8:44)

Again, if the V-2 clause is very short, i.e. the finite verb is at the same time in the second and final position, it is classified in a separate category (V-2 final), as in (10) and (11). (10) mater eius dixit (Lat. Tatian, cl. 184) mother his said   ‘And his mother said’  (Lk 1:60) (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1824) (11) quia Christi estis because Christ’s are-2PL   ‘Because you belong to Christ’  (Mk 9:40)

If the finite verb is in the third or further position, but not at the end of the clause, the clause is classified as ‘other’, as in (12). If the third or later position is at the same time final, the clause is labelled as V-final, as in (13). (12) Sirene animalia sunt mortifera (Lat. Phys., cl. 124) sirens animals are deadly   ‘Sirens are dangerous animals’ (13) Ego et pater unus sumus (Lat. Phys., cl. 95) I and father one are   ‘Me and my father are one’

Table 2 shows substantial differences in the proportions of these patterns among the analysed source texts. In all the biblical translations (i.e. Genesis, Luke and Tatian) and in Physiologus, the V-1 pattern is most frequent, and its dominance is especially clear in the Latin version of Genesis (ca. 42% vs. ca. 30–31% in Luke

350 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

and Tatian and ca. 26% in Physiologus). In Bede and Isidor, the most frequent pattern is V-final, with its frequency in the former text extremely high (ca. 46% vs. ca. 28% in Isidor). While the proportion of ‘short’ clauses (V-1 final and V-2 final) is similar across the texts, the relative frequency of the V-1 and V-final pattern is a text-specific feature. It is also interesting to note that the source texts showing a strong tendency for the V-final order (i.e. Bede and Isidor) use the V-2 pattern less frequently than the biblical translations and Physiologus. This means that the Latin original either demonstrates the tendency for the verb to be found at the beginning (i.e. the first or second position) or at the end of the clause (i.e. the V-final position). Finally, the frequency of finite clauses with an overt subject was checked in the source texts. As shown in the previous chapters, one of the most frequent modifications introduced by translators was adding an overt subject to the target clause. Table 3.  Proportion of clauses with an overt subject in the source texts. Text Genesis

Rate of subject expression in finite clauses

Total

759 (36.6%)

2076

Bede

544 (35.2%)

1546

Luke

501 (30.6%)

1635

Tatian

775 (32.7%)

2369

Isidor

302 (45.3%)

  669

Physiologus

  85 (37.3%)

  228

As shown in Table 3, all the texts except Isidor demonstrate a very similar proportion of such clauses (between 30 and 37%). However, in Isidor, ca. 45% of the finite source clauses actually contain an overt subject, which may be the reason for the relatively low frequency of pronominal subjects in the target text (the subjects added by the translators were predominantly personal pronouns). All the syntactic characteristics of the source texts will be included in the analysis presented in the following sections. 8.4 Overall closeness of the translations As shown in all the previous chapters, it is difficult to rank the translations from the most independent to the least independent of the source text because this ranking would be different for each of the analysed structures; probably with one exception, namely that Tatian is usually the text which follows the original to the

Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 351



greatest extent. One of the ways of checking how strictly the translators followed the original arrangement of constituents within a clause is to calculate the proportion of clauses which are ‘phrase by phrase’ (not word for word) translations of the original; this includes all phrase types without any exceptions (i.e. the target clause needs to use exactly the same set of phrases in exactly the same order to be classified as a ‘phrase by phrase’ translation). The results are presented in Table 4. Table 4.  Proportion of clauses translated phrase by phrase in the translations. Text

phrase by phrase

total

Genesis

164 (7.0%)

2355

Bede

118 (5.0%)

2343

Luke

  311 (14.9%)

2092

Tatian

1204 (40.4%)

2980

Isidor

  154 (17.1%)

  902

  19 (6.4%)

  298

Physiologus

Such clauses are present in all of the analysed texts, as illustrated with (14) to (19). (14) sed fons ascendebat e terra (Lat. Genesis, cl. 134) but spring rose from earth   Ac an wyl asprang of ðære eorðan (OE Genesis, cl. 132) but a spring rose of the earth   ‘But a spring rose out the earth’  (Gen 2:6)

(15) qui de Hibernia fuerant (Lat. Bede, cl. 143) who from Ireland came   þe of Hibernia coman (OE Bede, cl. 99) who from Ireland came   ‘Who came from Ireland’ (16) ut sacerdos quidam descenderet eadem via (Lat. Luke, cl. 2040) that priest certain descended this way   þæt sum sacerd ferde on þam ylcan wege (OE Luke, cl.1905) that some priest travelled on the same way   ‘That a certain priest went down the same way’  (Lk 10:31) (17) secundum fidem vestram fiat vobis! (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2458) according to faith your be-SBJ you-PL.DAT   after iuuaremo gilouben uuese íu! (OHG Tatian, cl. 2500) after your faith be-SBJ you-PL.DAT   ‘According to your faith be it done to you’  (Mt 9:29)

352 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(18) id est etiam ipsis angelis incognita (Lat. Isidor, cl. 187) it is also themselves angels-DAT unknown   Siu ist chiuuisso selbem angilum unchundiu (OHG Isidor, cl. 87) she is truly themselves angels-DAT unknown   ‘Even the angels do not know it’

(19) Mare significat hunc mundum (Lat. Phys., cl. 242) sea signifies this world   (OHG Phys., cl. 217) Daz mere bezeihchenet dise uuerelt this world   the sea signifies ‘The sea is the symbol of this world’

However, as shown in Table  4, the proportion of such clauses in the individual translations ranges from ca. 40% in Tatian to ca. 5% in Bede. This result, naturally, does not allow us to assume that Bede is the most independent translation; Chapters 3–7 prove that many structures used in Bede follow the Latin order. However, Table 4 shows in which texts the translators felt free and confident enough to change the original order of (at least some) constituents and where they adhered to the source text more often. Quite unexpectedly, the OE biblical translations, in which such closeness would be relatively natural because of the special status of the source text, have a relatively low proportion of such clauses: in the translation of Genesis, only 7% of clauses strictly follow the original arrangement of constituents, while in Luke, the proportion of such close translations is twice as high, but still much lower than in Tatian. On the other hand, since Tatian is sometimes called a gloss, the result of 40% seems reasonably low: the majority of clauses are somehow modified by the translators (though the analysis presented in Chapters 3–7 shows that the changes are quite rarely extensive, being mostly additions of overt subjects or rearrangements of some clause constituents). Since the analysis of element order patterns presented in this book is mostly based on the position of the finite verb (with respect to various other constituents), the following two sections will focus on the translation strategies employed in the translation of the two verb positions whose frequencies differ most across the source texts: V-initial and V-final. 8.5 Translating V-1 clauses Because the position of the finite verb in both OE and OHG depends on clause type, the translation strategies are presented for the three main groups of clauses separately (non-conjunct main declarative clauses, conjunct clauses and subordinate clauses). The clause classification is based on the target text; what we expect

Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 353



of the OE/OHG element order is based on the type of the target clause. As a result, some of the source clauses presented in this and the following sections may belong to a different type than the one which is being discussed (it is a rare, but possible, situation that a Latin main clause is translated as a subordinate or vice versa). Only clauses with 1-to-1 equivalence are included in the calculations.2 Because the chapter deals with translation strategies, the order of the source and target clauses in the examples is reversed; it is the source clause which is presented first. In main declarative clauses, the second position of the finite verb is most typical, and therefore, we would expect the strategy ‘V-1 into V-2’ to be most frequent, and indeed it is, as shown in Table 5. However, the tendency is not equally strong in all the texts. Table 5.  OE/OHG non-conjunct main declarative clauses with V-1 Latin sources. Text

into V-1

into V-2

into V-late

TOTAL

Genesis

  8 (3.7%)

134 (61.8%)

75 (34.6%)

217

Bede

  20 (40.8%)

  25 (51.0%)

4 (8.2%)

  49

Luke

  0 (0.0%)

165 (82.9%)

34 (17.1%)

199

Tatian

122 (48.4%)

128 (50.8%)

2 (0.8%)

252

Isidor

  15 (34.9%)

  25 (58.1%)

3 (7.0%)

  43

  0 (0.0%)

   23 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

  23

Physiologus

The frequency of the ‘V-1 into V-2’ strategy ranges from 100% in Physiologus (which comes as no surprise since all non-conjunct main declarative clauses in this text follow the V-2 order) to ca. 51% in Bede and Tatian. In Luke, this strategy may be observed in 83% of all clauses, which is a high result compared to the other biblical translations (62% in Genesis, and only 51% in Tatian). There are a number of methods employed by all the translators in order to change a V-1 clause into V-2. They include: a) providing an overt subject, as in (20), b) changing the V-S order into S-V as in (21), or c) adding an inverting phrase (mostly, though not exclusively, þa in OE or tho in OHG) at the beginning of the clause, as in (22) with þa, (23) with tho, and (24) showing a different inverting phrase. The last of these solutions, illustrated by (22)-(24), allows the translators to retain the V-S order in the target text without violating OE/OHG syntactic rules.

(20) Dilexisti iustitiam (Lat. Isidor, cl. 212) loved-2SG justice  

2.  This excludes Latin clauses which are omitted by the translators and cases in which one Latin clause is translated by two or more OE/OHG clauses.

354 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Dhu minnodos reht (OHG Isidor, cl. 113) you-SG loved justice   ‘You have loved justice’ (21) erat autem Sarai sterilis (Lat. Genesis, cl. 877) was also Sarai barren   Sarai wæs untymende (OE Genesis, cl. 725) Sarai was barren   ‘And Sarai was barren’  (Gen 11:30)



(22) dixitque ei Iesus (Lat. Luke, cl. 1901) said-and him Jesus   Ða cwæþ se Hælend (OE Luke, cl.1772) then said the Saviour   ‘And Jesus said to him’  (Lk 9:60)

(23) Respondit eis Iohannes (Lat. Tatian, cl. 734) answered them John   Thô antlingota in Iohannes (OHG Tatian, cl. 741) then answered them John   ‘John answered them’  (Jn 1:26)

(24) Est et animal in mari (Lat. Phys., cl. 231) is and animal in sea   In demo mere ist einez (OHG Phys., cl. 208) in the sea is one   ‘There is an animal in the sea’

The use of the ‘V-1 into V-late’ strategy is text-specific. In the OHG translations, where the V-2 rule is very strong, it is used in very few cases (only 5 clauses for all the three texts altogether), while in the OE texts, its frequency is relatively high (35% in Genesis and 17% in Luke). Bede is the only OE text in which this strategy is rarely applied, but this seems related to the low frequency of V-1 in the Latin source text rather than a consistent avoidance of V-late in this text, which is obviously not the case. If the strategy ‘V-1 into V-late’ is used, many clause constituents are rearranged and an intervening phrase is placed between the subject and the finite verb, as shown in (25) and (26). The intervening phrases are mostly sentence adverbs and light phrases (such as the pronominal prepositional object shown in (26)). (25) fecit ergo Noe omnia (Lat. Genesis, cl. 540) did therefore Noe all   Noe soðlice dyde ealle ða ðing (OE Genesis, cl. 507) Noe truly did all the things   ‘And Noe did all things’  (Gen 7:5)

Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 355



(26) adpropinquavit in vos regnum Dei (Lat. Luke, cl. 1947) approaches in you kingdom God’s   Godes rice to eow genealæcð (OE Luke, cl.1818) God’s kingdom to you approaches   ‘The kingdom of God is approaching you’  (Lk 10:9)

Finally, as far as the ‘V-1 into V-1’ strategy is concerned, there are substantial differences between the translations. The rate of retention of the V-1 order is highest in Tatian (48%), Bede (41%) and Isidor (35%), and the structure is never retained in Physiologus or Luke. In Genesis, some examples were identified, but they are relatively infrequent (only 4%). When the V-1 order is replicated in the target text, it happens both in clauses with and without overt subjects, cf. Table 6, and (27) and (28) respectively. Table 6.  ‘V-1 into V-1’ non-conjunct clauses with and without overt subjects. Physiologus

V1 into V-1 no S

V-1 into V-1 with S

Total V-1 into V-1

Genesis

 3

 5

   8

Bede

 2

18

  20

Luke

 0

 0

   0

Tatian

78

44

122

Isidor

 7

 8

  15

Physiologus

 0

 0

   0

There is only one translation, Tatian, in which there are a substantial number of V-1 non-conjunct main declarative clauses without an overt subject retained in the target text, as in (27). By contrast, in Bede, 18 out of 20 clauses representing the ‘V-1 into V-1 strategy’ contain an overt subject, which confirms our findings from Chapter 4 that Latin strengthens the frequency of V-1 in Bede. However, this pattern is generally rare in the source text, so the influence of Latin is limited in this respect and cannot account for all (or even most) of the instances of V-1 in this translation. (27) abiit in domum suam (Lat. Tatian, cl. 83) went-3SG in his house   gieng in sin hus (OHG Tatian, cl. 82) went-3SG in house his   ‘He went into his house’  (Mt 9:7) (28) Scribit autem Eutropius (Lat. Bede, cl. 532) writes also Eutropius  

356 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Writeð Eutropius (OE Bede, cl. 402) writes Eutropius   ‘Eutropius writes’

All in all, the analysis presented above shows that the translators of Genesis and Luke, confronted with a V-1 model, selected either V-2 or V-late as the preferred patterns for non-conjunct clauses, while the translators of Bede, Tatian and Isidor opted for V-2 or V-1. In the case of Physiologus, there was only one option which was consistently followed, which was V-2. The OHG translators were more prone to retain V-1 than to use the V-late order, while the OE biblical translators used these two strategies in reverse proportions. This points to the strength of the V-2 rule in OHG, the relative freedom in the use of V-late in OE and its visible markedness in OHG, and text-specific differences in the treatment of V-1 across the translations. In the case of conjunct clauses with a V-1 source, presented in Table 7, the dominant strategy seems to a great extent text-specific. Table 7.  Conjunct clauses with V-1 Latin sources. Text

into V-1

into V-2

into V-late

TOTAL

Genesis

  77 (42.1%)

  71 (38.8%)

35 (19.1%)

183

Bede

   2 (13.3%)

   6 (40.0%)

  7 (46.7%)

  15

Luke

  56 (39.7%)

  64 (45.4%)

21 (14.9%)

141

Tatian

159 (91.9%)

14 (8.1%)

0 (0.0%)

173

Isidor

  14 (41.2%)

  18 (52.9%)

2 (5.9%)

  34

    6 (100.0%)

  0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

   6

Physiologus

Since conjunct clauses are expected to be V-2 (or V-1 with no S) in OHG, the fact that the strategy ‘V-1 into V-late’ is so rarely used in the OHG translations comes as no surprise. It is evident that the OE translators resorted to it much more frequently. However, the highest result (47%) comes from Bede, where the frequency of V-1 in the source text is very low (only 15 clauses altogether), cf. (29). In Genesis and Luke, the absolute numbers of clauses representing this strategy, as in (30), are higher. However, it should be borne in mind that in non-conjunct clauses from OE biblical translations, the strategy ‘V-1 into V-late’ was applied more frequently than in conjunct clauses (35% vs. 19% in Genesis, and 17% vs. 15% in Luke), while in Bede, the tendency is reversed (8% vs. 47%, though, of course, the low numbers make any final conclusions less reliable). Nothing conclusive may be stated on the basis of these results alone, but in combination with our analysis presented in Chapter 6, we can quite safely assume that the use of the V-final rule in conjunct clauses is different in Bede vs. Genesis and Luke. In the former text,



Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 357

the rule is strong enough to be applied even when Latin gives a clear model for the V-1 pattern, while in the latter pair of texts, the influence of the V-final rule on the order of conjunct clauses is difficult to observe. (29) Implebatque actu (Lat. Bede, cl. 1966) fullfilled-3SG-and action-ABL   & he mid dede gefylde (OE Bede, cl. 1740) and he with deed fulfilled   ‘And he fulfilled with deed’ (Lat. Genesis, cl. 922) (30) et invocavit nomen eius and called-3SG name his   & hys naman ðær clypode (OE Genesis, cl. 766) and his name there called-3SG   ‘And he called his name’  (Gen 12:7)

The proportion of the strategy ‘V-1 into V-2’ is similar in all the OE translations, and it is predominantly related to the introduction of an overt subject, as in (31). However, in OHG, the frequency of the strategy differs considerably among the translations: from 53% in Isidor, through only 8% in Tatian, to 0% in Physiologus. It is also noteworthy that in Isidor, which follows this strategy most often, only 6 out of 18 clauses representing this category involve addition of an overt subject; all the remaining clauses are rearranged by the translator, as in (32). (31) eroque Deus eorum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1264) be-1SG.FUT-and God their   & ic beo heora God (OE Genesis, cl. 1059) and I am their God   ‘And I will be their God’  (Gen 17:8)

(32) Sed adicit incredulus (Lat. Isidor, cl. 633) but adds unbeliever   Oh dher unchilaubo fraghet noh (OHG Isidor, cl. 547) but the unbeliever asks still   ‘But the unbeliever keeps asking’

The last strategy, ‘V-1 into V-1’, is the only one which is attested in all the translations, though with very different frequencies: from only 13% in Bede to 100% in Physiologus. Moreover, if V-1 clauses are subdivided into those with and without overt subjects, it turns out that some of the translations follow only one of the two patterns, cf. Table 8.

358 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 8.  ‘V-1 into V-1’ conjunct clauses with and without overt subjects. Text

V-1 into V-1 no S

V-1 into V-1 with S

Total V-1 into V-1

Genesis

  75

 2

  77

Bede

   2

 0

   2

Luke

  56

 0

  56

Tatian

130

29

159

Isidor

 5

 9

  14

Physiologus

 6

 0

   6

In Genesis and Luke, the V-1 pattern is retained in ca. 40% of all conjunct clauses, and almost all of them have no overt subjects, as in (33). In Bede, only 2 V-1 clauses are translated as V-1 conjunct clauses, which is related to the low frequency of V-1 in the Latin text. Among all the OE conjunct clauses which retain the V-1 order, there are only 2 clauses with an overt subject, and both are found in Genesis, as illustrated in (34). (33) dixit illi (Lat. Luke, cl. 1173) said-3SG her   & cwæþ to hyre (OE Luke, cl. 1089) and said-3SG to her   ‘And he said to her’  (Lk 7:13) (34) eritque pactum meum in carne vestra is-FUT covenant my in flesh your in fœdus æternum (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1276) in covenant perpetual   on eowrum flæsce & beo min wed and is my covenant in your flesh on ecum wedde (OE Genesis, cl. 1071) in eternal covenant   ‘And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant’  (Gen 17:13)

In the OHG translations, the rate of retention of V-1 in conjunct clauses is generally higher than in the OE texts. The only exception is Isidor, where only 41% of V-1 clauses are translated with V-1. However, in Tatian, the result is 92% and in Physiologus, even though the number of clauses is low, their syntactic behaviour is completely consistent since all of them are translated as V-1. When we take the presence of an overt subject into consideration, it turns out that all the 6 clauses from Physiologus contain null subjects, as in (35), which means that they follow the V-2 rule. In Tatian, such clauses are also a majority, but both in Tatian and



Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 359

Isidor, there are also V-1 clauses with an overt subject modelled on the Latin V-1, as in (36) and (37). (35) dormit per triduum (Lat. Phys., cl.42) sleeps-3SG for three days   unde slafæt trie taga (OHG Phys., cl. 45) and sleeps-3SG three days   ‘And it sleeps for three days’

(Lat. Tatian, cl. 435) (36) et benedixit illis Simeon and blessed them Simeon   inti uuihita in thô Simeon (OHG Tatian, cl. 438) and blessed them then Simeon   ‘And Simeon blessed them’  (Lk 2:34)

(37) et fluent aque (Lat. Isidor, cl. 398) and flow waters   endi rinnant uuazssar (OHG Isidor, cl. 306) and flow waters   ‘And waters flow’



In short, it is visible that the OE translators quite consistently avoided copying the V-1 order with an overt subject in conjunct clauses; only the order of V-1 clauses with null subjects (consistent with the V-2 rule) was followed in the target texts, though ‘V-1 into V-1’ is not a dominant strategy in any OE translation. The OHG translations, on the other hand, follow the original V-1 order more frequently, even if the clause contains an overt subject. Furthermore, the strategy ‘V-1 into V-late’ is very infrequent in the OHG texts, contrary to the OE translations, where its frequency is rather high. The last clause type, namely subordinate clauses, comes across as exceptionally independent, as shown in Table 9.

360 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Table 9.  OE/OHG subordinate clauses with V-1 Latin sources. V-early

V-prefinal/final3

Total

Genesis

17 (14.4%)

101 (85.6%)

118

Bede

  3 (11.5%)

  23 (88.5%)

  26

Luke

10 (10.5%)

  85 (89.5%)

  95

Tatian

34 (22.8%)

115 (77.2%)

149

Isidor

  4 (13.8%)

  25 (86.2%)

  29

Physiologus

  2 (11.8%)

  15 (88.2%)

  17

Text

All the texts, quite consistently, mostly change the V-1 pattern into V-prefinal or V-final, as illustrated with (38) and (39). (38) ut cognovit autem Iesus cogitationes eorum (Lat. Luke, cl. 753) when knew then Jesus thoughts their   Ða se hælend gecneow hyra geþanca (OE Luke, cl. 818) then the saviour knew their thoughts   ‘And when Jesus knew their thoughts’  (Lk 5:22)

(39) Cum dormierit leo (Lat. Phys., cl. 17) when sleeps lion   Tenne so der leo slafet (OHG Phys., cl. 21) when the lion sleeps   ‘When the lion falls asleep’



There is only one translation, Tatian, with a relatively high proportion of V-early subordinates with a V-1 source, but the target clauses are not strictly V-1, which means that even in the closest translation from our corpus, the translators made an effort to avoid using V-1 in subordinate clauses, as shown in (40); in the other translations, this is a comparatively minor strategy. autem domino iuramenta tua (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1293) (40) reddes deliver-2SG also lord-ABL oaths your-SG   uuanta thú giltis gote thina meineida (OHG Tatian, cl. 1310) because you owe god-DAT your oaths   ‘Because you owe your oaths to the Lord’  (Mt 5:33)

Therefore, we may conclude by stating that the Latin V-1 order has a stronger influence on the order of OE/OHG main clauses (both conjunct and non-conjunct) than on subordinate clauses, where it is quite consistently avoided. 3.  The V-prefinal and V-final patterns are not distinguished in the table because we are interested in how often the translator would retain the early position of the finite verb in the subordinate clause.

Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 361



8.6 Translating V-final clauses In non-conjunct main declarative clauses, the V-final order is not typically used; therefore, we would expect the translators to move the verb to an earlier position in the clause. As Table 10 shows, this is what happens in all the texts except for Bede where the ‘V-final into V-late’ strategy is dominant. Table 10.  OE/OHG non-conjunct main declarative clauses with V-final Latin sources. Text

into V-1

into V-2

into V-late

[in that V-final]4

TOTAL

Genesis

3 (9.4%)

20 (62.5%)

  9 (28.1%)

    [6 (18.8%)]

  32

Bede

9 (7.6%)

33 (28.0%)

76 (64.4%)

   [32 (27.1%)]

118

Luke

4 (7.7%)

29 (55.8%)

19 (36.5%)

   [14 (26.9%)]

  52

Tatian

4 (4.7%)

55 (64.7%)

26 (30.6%)

   [22 (25.9%)]

  85

Isidor

1 (1.6%)

30 (47.6%)

32 (50.8%)

   [13 (20.6%)]

  63

Physiologus

0 (0.0%)

  11 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

[0 (0%)]

  11

However, if only the ‘V-final into V-final’ clauses are taken into consideration, it becomes clear that in all the translations, the position of the verb is retained in a minority of clauses, as e.g. in (41) and (42); except for Physiologus, which is consistently V-2. (41) Albanum egregium fecunda Britania profert (Lat. Bede, cl. 320) Albanus noble-ACC fruitful Britain-NOM produces   þone æðelan Albanum seo wæstmberende Bryton forðbereð the noble Albanus-ACC the fruit-bearing Britain-NOM produces ‘Fruitful Britain produces the noble Albanus’  (OE Bede, cl. 180)

(42) Sic in consequentibus idem propheta ait (Lat. Isidor, cl. 394) so in consequence this prophet said   So hear after dher selbo forasago quhad (OHG Isidor, cl. 302) so hear after the same prophet said   ‘Afterwards the same prophet said thus’

There are only 2 translations in which the strategy ‘V-final into V-late’ is more frequent than ‘V-final into V-2’: these are Bede and Isidor. In both cases, the Latin source texts are quite strongly V-final, especially Bede (cf. Table 2 in this chapter). 4.  As explained in Chapter 2, the label ‘V-late’ used in the analysis of main clauses covers all clauses in which the verb is neither the first nor the second clause constituent, which includes the V-final order. In Table 10, however, the V-final pattern is distinguished to illustrate the translation strategies more precisely.

362 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

Thus, the syntax of the source texts seems to have an impact on the order of nonconjunct main declarative clauses from these translations: it increases the number of V-late patterns and limits the frequency of V-2. However, it is evident that the translators made an effort to avoid the V-final order in this group of clauses, rendering some of the Latin V-final patterns as V-late (but not strictly V-final), as in (43) and (44). (43) Sic enim nos fidelibus tenere disciplinam debemus (Lat. Bede, cl. 1248) so indeed we faithful-ABL keep discipline should   (OE Bede, cl. 1050) Forþon þys gemete we sculon men þreagean therefore this way-DAT we should men discipline   ‘Therefore we should discipline men in the same way’



(44) Ebdomada namque in sacris eloquiis septem annis week however in sacred language seven years terminatur (Lat. Isidor, cl. 601) mark-PASS   Dhea uuehhun auur in heilegim quhidim arfullant the week-ACC however in sacred language fulfill sibun iaar (OHG Isidor, cl. 516) seven years-NOM   ‘The week, however, consists of seven years in sacred language’

The strategy ‘V-final into V-2’ is dominant in the texts where the V-final pattern is not very frequent in Latin, i.e. in Genesis, Luke, Tatian and Physiologus. In all these translations, the finite verb is quite consistently moved to the second position, as in (45). It is noteworthy that Tatian shows independence of the original in this regard, similarly to the other biblical translations, as illustrated with (46). (45) pater noster senex est (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1612) father our old is   Vre fæder ys eald man (OE Genesis, cl. 1357) our father is old man   ‘Our father is old’  (Gen 19:31)

(46) Maria optimam partem elegit (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2543) Mary best part chose   Maria gicós thaz bezista teil (OHG Tatian, cl. 2586) Mary chose the best part   ‘Mary chose the best part’  (Lk 10:42)

The frequency of the ‘V-final into V-1’ strategy is negligible in all the translations, including the OHG ones, which suggests that V-1 is either not a native Germanic

Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 363



structure (and thus it is not used when the Latin source gives a clear model for a different pattern), or it is so marked that its use becomes more frequent only under the direct influence of the original. In short, the influence of the Latin V-final order on OE/OHG non-conjunct clauses is most visible in Bede and Isidor, where the frequency of V-2 is limited and the proportion of V-late grows in clauses where Latin gives a model for a late placement of the finite verb. Table  11 shows the strategies for translating conjunct clauses with V-final sources. Table 11.  OE/OHG conjunct clauses with V-final Latin sources. Text

into V-1

into V-2

into V-late/ final

[in that V-final]

TOTAL

  4 (17.4%)

18 (78.3%)

  1 (4.3%)

[0 (0%)]

23

Bede

3 (6.1%)

11 (22.4%)

  35 (71.4%)

  [20 (40.8%)]

49

Luke

  4 (22.2%)

  8 (44.4%)

   6 (33.3%)

   [5 (27.8%)]

18

Genesis

Tatian

2 (7.4%)

15 (55.6%)

  10 (37.0%)

   [9 (33.3%)]

27

Isidor

0 (0.0%)

  9 (64.3%)

   5 (35.7%)

   [3 (21.4%)]

14

  6 (85.7%)

  1 (14.3%)

  0 (0.0%)

[0 (0%)]

 7

Physiologus

Such clauses are consistently rendered as V-1 or V-2 in Genesis and Physiologus, as in (47). However, in Bede, over 70% of conjuncts with a V-final source are at least V-late, and ca. 41% of them are strictly V-final. Thus, the use of the V-final order in conjunct clauses in Bede seems to be promoted by the Latin model, as illustrated in (48). There are also some examples of the ‘V-final into V-final’ strategy used in Luke, Tatian and Isidor, but in these texts, such clauses are rather infrequent and they are mostly changed into V-2, as in (49). (47) atque musicum quoddam dulcissimum melodie carmen and musical certain most pleasant melody-GEN song canant (Lat. Phys., cl 127) sing-3PL   unde mugin uile scono sinen (OHG Phys., cl. 119) and can-3PL very nicely sing   ‘And they can sing most pleasant songs’

(48) sicque domum cum triumpho magno reuersa est (Lat. Bede, cl. 646) so-and home with triumph great returned is   & swa mid mycele sige ham foran (OE Bede, cl. 448) And so with great triumph home returned-3PL   ‘And so with great triumph they returned home’



364 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(49) In spiritu tamen dominus eius et deus est (OHG Isidor, cl. 300) in spirit still lord his and god is   Oh ir ist chiuuisso in dhemu heilegin gheiste and he is truly in the holy ghost got ioh druhtin (Lat. Isidor, cl. 207) god and lord   ‘And he is truly in spirit his God and lord’

Subordinate clauses with V-final sources, as illustrated in Table  12, are mostly translated as V-final in each of the analysed translations. Table 12.  Subordinate clauses with V-final Latin sources. Text

V-early

V-prefinal

V-final

TOTAL

Genesis

  4 (13.3%)

  8 (26.7%)

  18 (60.0%)

  30

Bede

27 (11.1%)

62 (25.5%)

154 (63.4%)

243

Luke

3 (3.7%)

12 (14.6%)

  67 (81.7%)

  82

Tatian

2 (1.6%)

9 (7.3%)

113 (91.1%)

124

Isidor

  5 (10.0%)

13 (26.0%)

  32 (64.0%)

  50

Physiologus

  1 (10.0%)

4 (40.0%)

   5 (50.0%)

  10

The strategy ‘V-final into V-final’ is employed most often in Tatian (91%), as in (50). It is also relatively common in Luke (82%). However, rather surprisingly, in the two translations with the highest frequency of the V-final pattern in the source text, i.e. Bede and Isidor, this result is noticeably lower (ca. 64%). In Genesis, where the V-final pattern is relatively rare in the source text, the ‘V-final into V-final’ strategy is employed with the same frequency. Even so, the majority of subordinate clauses with a V-final source in all these texts follow the V-final pattern, as in (51). The proportion of ‘V-final into V-final’ is lowest in Physiologus, though it still reaches 50%. However, the numbers are too low for any definite conclusions to be drawn. (50) dominum deum tuum adorabis (Lat. Tatian, cl. 831) lord god your-SG adore-2SG.FUT   thaz thû truhtin got thinan betos (OHG Tatian, cl. 838) that you-SG lord god your-SG adore-2SG   ‘That the Lord your God you shall adore’  (Mt 4:10) (51) quia propheta unus de prioribus surrexit (Lat. Luke, cl. 1723) that prophet one from former rose   þæt sum witega of ðam ealdum aras (OE Luke, cl. 1606) that some prophet of the old arose   ‘That one of the former prophets has risen again’  (Lk 9:19)

Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 365



If we compare the proportion of V-final and V-early order in subordinates with a V-1 or a V-final source, the results for the V-final sources quite convincingly show the effects of ‘qualitative loan syntax’ or at least the sensitivity of the order of target clauses to the order of their source, cf. Table 13. Table 13.  Comparison of V-final and V-early subordinates with V-1 and V-final sources. Text

V-final with V-1 sources

V-final with V-final sources

V-early with V-1 sources

V-early with V-final sources

  36 out of 118 (30.5%)5

18 out of 30 (60.0%)

  17 out of 118 (14.4%)

  4 out of 30 (13.3%)

Bede

15 out of 26 (57.7%)

154 out of 243 (63.4%)

  3 out of 26 (11.5%)

  27 out of 243 (11.1%)

Luke

57 out of 95 (60.0%)

67 out of 82 (81.7%)

10 out of 95 (10.5%)

3 out of 82 (3.7%)

Tatian

  32 out of 149 (21.5%)

113 out of 124 (91.1%)

  34 out of 149 (22.8%)

  2 out of 124 (1.6%)

Isidor

14 out of 29 (48.3%)

32 out of 50 (64.0%)

  4 out of 29 (13.8%)

  5 out of 50 (10.0%)

Physiologus

  7 out of 17 (41.2%)

  5 out of 10 (50.0%)

  2 out of 17 (11.8%)

  1 out of 10 (10.0%)

Genesis

In every text except for Bede (where the number of clauses with a V-1 source is very low compared to those with a V-final source) and Physiologus (where the numbers are generally low), the frequency of the V-final order is clearly higher in clauses with a V-final source compared to clauses with a V-1 source (60% vs. 30% in Genesis, 82% vs. 60% in Luke, 21% vs. 91% in Tatian and 48% vs. 64% in Isidor). However, when we analyse the frequency of the V-early order, it turns out that subordinate clauses seem to be sensitive to that kind of influence only in Tatian; in all the other translations, the frequencies are almost identical. Therefore, Table 13 nicely illustrates the way in which source text influence works; the translator seems more prone to retain a structure when OE or OHG rules of syntax allow it (i.e. ‘V-final into V-final’ in subordinate clauses), while a structure which is generally marked in OE/OHG (as the V-1 order in subordinate clauses) is quite consistently avoided in all the texts, though least so in Tatian, which does not come as a surprise.

5.  The percentages indicate the proportion of clauses with a V-1 or V-final source which follow the V-final or the V-early order; V-prefinal clauses are excluded from the calculations. Therefore, the percentages in the table do not add up to 100%.

366 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

8.7 Translating non-finite clauses As shown in section 8.3, the frequency of non-finite clauses in the Latin source texts differs to a great extent, and the translation strategies employed in the individual target texts are also very diverse, as shown in Table 14, where all non-finite clauses are shown without subclassification. Table 14.  Translation of Latin non-finite clauses. into non-finite

into finite

into more clauses

into elliptical

Total

Genesis

Text

  30 (25.9%)

  83 (71.6%)

  3 (2.6%)

0 (0%)

116

Bede

110 (24.2%)

275 (60.6%)

  60 (13.2%)

  9 (2.0%)

454

Luke

154 (46.4%)

169 (50.9%)

  5 (1.5%)

  4 (1.2%)

332

Tatian

376 (83.7%)

  72 (16.0%)

0 (0%)

  1 (0.2%)

449

Isidor

  49 (39.2%)

  71 (56.8%)

  3 (2.4%)

  2 (1.6%)

125

  1 (3.7%)

  26 (96.3%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

  27

Physiologus

The rate of retention of non-finite clauses (i.e. the proportion of non-finite clauses translated as non-finite clauses) ranges from ca. 4% in Physiologus (1 clause) to ca. 84% in Tatian (376 clauses). In Physiologus and Genesis, non-finite clauses are mostly changed into finite ones (96% and 72% respectively), as in (52). In Bede, Isidor and Luke, non-finite clauses are also mostly made finite (which is a largescale change in the case of Bede, where non-finite clauses are very frequent in the source text), but this strategy is slightly less frequent in these texts than in Genesis and Physiologus (61% in Bede, 57% in Isidor, and 51% in Luke). However, in Tatian, this strategy is employed in only 16% of cases, (53) being a rare example. (52) videns autem Deus (OE Genesis, cl. 488) seeing also God   Ða geseah God (Lat. Genesis, cl. 454) when saw God   ‘When God saw’  (Gen 6:5)

(53) Audiens autem Herodes rex (Lat. Tatian, cl. 461) hearing also Herod king   Thô thaz gihorta Herodes ther cuning (OHG Tatian, cl. 464) when that heard Herod the king   ‘When king Herod heard this’  (Mt 2:3)

On the other hand, the opposite strategy, i.e. translating a Latin non-finite clause as an OE/OHG non-finite clause, is dominant in Tatian (84%), as in (54). The



Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 367

same method is employed very regularly in Luke (46%), and relatively regularly in Isidor (39%). (54) Exsurgens autem Maria in diebus illis (Lat. Tatian, cl. 132) rising also Mary in days these   Arstantenti Maria in then tagon (OHG Tatian, cl. 131) rising Maria in the days   ‘And Mary rising up in those days’  (Lk 1:39)

In Genesis and Bede, however, only ca. 25% of the clauses are translated in this way, and examples such as in (55) and (56) are relatively difficult to find. In Physiologus, only one such clause has been identified, namely an infinitival clause functioning as the object of the verb ‘to begin’, shown in (57). (56) is a similar example coming from Bede, where ca. 61% of the non-finite clauses translated into non-finite are infinitival. (55) dicens in corde suo (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1290) saying in heart his   cweðende on hys heortan (OE Genesis, cl. 1085) saying on his heart   ‘Saying in his heart’  (Gen 17:17)

(56) Quae omnia rudi Anglorum genti oportet haberi which all wild England’s people is proper to have conperta (Lat. Bede, cl. 1441–1442) learned   ‘All of which it is proper for the wild people of England to have learned’ All þas þing þære neowan ðeode Ongolcynnes in Godes geleafan gedafenað all these things the new people England’s in God’s faith is proper cuð habban (OE Bede, cl. 1225–1226) known to have   ‘It is proper for the English people, who are still new in the faith of God, to have learned all this’

(57) Incipit autem et animal illud ludere begins also and animal this to play cum virgulis istis (Lat. Phys., cl. 212–213) with twigs these   so beginnet ez da mite spilen (OE Phys., cl. 196–197) so begins it that with to play   ‘Then the animal begins to play with it [the twigs]’

In Bede, unlike in the other texts, paraphrasing is a relatively frequent strategy, whereby information from a single non-finite clause from the source text is

368 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

translated using at least two clauses, sometimes finite, as in (58), and sometimes non-finite, as in (59), the latter featuring an accusative plus infinitive construction. The use of such ‘doublets’ is very common in Bede. (58) obsecrans (Lat. Bede, cl. 249) praying   bæd hine & halsade (OE Bede, cl. 136–137) asked him and entreated   ‘He asked and entreated him’

(59) Unde statim iussit milites eum diligentius whence quickly sent soldiers him diligently inquirere (Lat. Bede, cl. 336–337) seek   Ða het he hraðe his þegnas hine secan & then ordered he quickly his thanes him seek and acsian (OE Bede, cl. 198–200) ask   ‘Then he quickly ordered his attendants to seek and ask him’



Such paraphrases found in Bede comprise 30 non-finite, 11 elliptical and 83 finite clauses. This means that the strategy ‘non-finite into finite’ is dominant even when additional clauses are provided in the translation. One of the most characteristic non-finite structures which the translators had to deal with are ablative absolutes, which are present in all the source texts and dealt with in different ways depending on the individual text, cf. Table 15. Table 15.  Translation of Latin absolute constructions. Text

into finite main

into finite subordinate

into absolute

into adverbial phrase

into other non-finite

Total

Genesis

   6 (54.5%)

  4 (36.4%)

0 (0%)

  1 (9.1%)

0 (0%)

11

Bede

  16 (30.2%)

22 (41.5%)

  10 (18.9%)

  5 (9.4%)

0 (0%)

53

Luke

   8 (24.2%)

  8 (24.2%)

  15 (45.5%)

0 (0%)

  2 (6.1%)

33

Tatian

0 (0%)

1 (2.4%)

  41 (97.6%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

42

Isidor

   3 (21.4%)

  2 (14.3%)

   6 (42.9%)

   3 (21.4%)

0 (0%)

14

0 (0%)

2 (100%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

 2

Physiologus

Generally, there are a few main strategies employed for the translation of absolute structures. First of all, they may be changed into finite clauses, either main, as in (60), or subordinate, as in (61). This is the dominant strategy in most of the translations and accounts for 100% of these structures in Physiologus (though this



Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 369

result corresponds to only two clauses), 85% in Genesis, 72% in Bede, 48% in Luke and 37% in Isidor, but only 2% in Tatian. The one clause from our sample of Tatian in which the translator introduced such a modification is shown in (62). (60) quo audito (Lat. Genesis, cl. 1364) which-ABL heard-ABL   ‘Which having heard’ (OE Genesis, cl. 1155) Sarra þa gehyrde ðas word binnan ðam getelde   Sara then heard these words inside the tent ‘Sara then heard these words in the tent’  (Gen 18:10) (61) assumta mortali natura carne (Lat. Phys., cl. 120) taken-ABL mortal nature body-ABL   der an sih nam den menischen lihhamin (OHG Phys., cl. 109) who on himself took the human body   ‘Who accepted the human body’

(62) Defuncto autem Herode (Lat. Tatian, cl. 535) dead-ABL also Herod-ABL   Thô Herod arstarb (OHG Tatian, cl. 538) when Herod died   ‘When Herod was dead’  (Mt 2:19)



The second most frequent strategy, i.e. retention of the absolute structure in the form of a dative absolute, is attested in all the translations except for Genesis and Physiologus. (63) is an example of this strategy, which is by far most frequent in Tatian (98%), where absolute structures are mostly translated in the closest possible way, this being the most straightforward way of retaining the line-by-line translation principle. Among the OE translations, Luke shows the highest rate of retention of this structure (45%), as in (64). (63) Et relicta civitate Nazareth (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1096) and left-ABL city Nazareth-ABL   inti forlazanero burg Nazareth (OHG Tatian, cl. 1106) and left-DAT city Nazareth-DAT   ‘And leaving the city Nazareth’  (Mt 4:13)

(64) et Iesu baptizato et orante (Lat. Luke, cl. 465–466) and Jesus-ABL baptised-ABL and praying-ABL   & þam hælende gefulledum & gebiddendum (OE Luke, cl. 460–461) and the saviour-DAT baptised-DAT and praying-DAT   ‘Jesus also being baptised and praying’  (Lk 3:21)



370 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

An interesting minority strategy is a change from a dative absolute into a prepositional phrase, identified in Genesis, Bede and Isidor, as in (65). (65) Domino cooperante (Lat. Bede, cl. 2036) lord-ABL cooperating-ABL   ... mid Godes fultome... (OE Bede, cl. 1823) with God’s help   ‘With God’s help’

Finally, Luke is the only translation in our corpus with 2 ablatives which are translated as another kind of non-finite clause, as in (66). (66) elevatis oculis in discipulos suos (Lat. Luke, cl. 977) lifted-ABL eyes-ABL to disciples his   beseonde to his leorningcnihtum (OE Luke, cl. 892)   looking to his disciples ‘Lifting up his eyes to his disciples’  (Lk 6:20)

The analysis above shows that absolute constructions were avoided by the translators in all the texts except for Tatian, which suggests that the native character of the dative absolute is rather uncertain. However, in our corpus, there are some infrequent independent uses of the dative absolute construction. One from Bede is shown in (67). This is an OE absolute construction with a preposition, where the Latin source clause is non-finite but it is not an absolute construction. (Lat. Bede, cl. 2283) (67) adhuc uiuens still living   bi him lifigendum (OE Bede, cl. 2056) by him living-DAT   ‘When he was still alive’

Luke has the structure shown in (68), which may perhaps be treated as an independent use though this is unclear. The Latin original uses a participle in the nominative case followed by a prepositional phrase, which is clearly not an absolute construction. On the other hand, OE uses a similar prepositional phrase, though with the participle in the dative case, which is not modelled on the Latin ablative. (68) et descendens cum illis (Lat. Luke, cl. 964) and descending-NOM with them   (OE Luke, cl. 878) And mid him farendum and with them going-DAT   ‘And coming down with them’  (Lk 6:17)



Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 371

Callaway, presenting this example, makes the following comment: “Or shall we emend farendum to farende in accordance with the Latin?” (Callaway 1901: 217). Even if we treat this case as a mistake, there are still independent uses of the dative absolute in West-Saxon Gospels noted by Segura & Gallardo (2007), which means that the pattern, though infrequent, was used even when the Vulgate did not provide a direct model. Only one such case has been identified in the OHG translations, as shown in (69). (69) moriens (Lat. Isidor, cl. 900) dying   imu arsterbandemu (OHG Isidor, cl. 822) him dead-DAT   ‘When he is dead’

On the whole, the independent uses are interesting though extremely rare in our corpus. What is noteworthy, though, is that even when the translators used a dative absolute construction based on an indubitable Latin model, they often modified the original structure, changing the relative order of the oblique subject and the participle. Out of 10 ablative absolutes translated as dative absolutes in Bede, two show changes in the order of constituents, as shown in (70) and (71). (70) ministerio persoluto, deuotione conpleta (Lat. Bede, cl. 461–462) service-ABL paid-ABL devotion-ABL finished-ABL   gefylledre wilsumnesse & ðære ðenunge fulfilled-DAT devotion and the service-DAT þæs eadigan martyres (OE Bede, cl. 331) the holy martyr-GEN   ‘Having fulfilled devotion and service to the holy martyr’ (Lat. Bede, cl. 529) (71) uiuente Diocletiano living-ABL Diocletianus-ABL   be Diocletiane lyfgendum (OE Bede, cl. 396) by Diocletianus-DAT living-DAT   ‘In the lifetime of Diocletianus’

In Luke, among 15 dative absolutes, there are 6 changes from the order participlesubject in Latin into subject-participle in OE, as in (72), and one change in the reverse direction, shown in (73).

372 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

(72) et consummata omni temptatione (Lat. Luke, cl. 592) and ended-ABL all temptation-ABL   & ealre þære costunge gefylledre (OE Luke, cl. 516) and all the temptation-DAT ended-DAT   ‘And all the temptation being ended’  (Lk 4:13)

(73) inundatione autem facta (Lat. Luke, cl. 1101) flood-ABL then made-ABL   Soðlice gewordenum flode (OE Luke, cl. 1017) truly made-DAT flood-DAT   ‘When a flood came’  (Lk 6:48)



In certain cases, the Tatian translation also involves modification, though most of the 41 dative absolutes strictly follow the Latin order. However, there are 6 changes from participle-subject to subject-participle order, as in (74). It must be noted that 4 of these dative absolutes have a pronominal subject, which suggests a link between use of the pattern and the tendency for personal pronouns to be placed in the pre-verbal position. In the remaining two cases the subject is allen, which as an indefinite pronoun behaves in a similar way, cf. (75).There are also two changes in the opposite direction, as in (76), in both cases the subject is nominal. in domo (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2224) (74) discumbente eo sitting-ABL him-ABL in house   imo sizentemo in húse (OHG Tatian, cl. 2264) him sitting-DAT in house   ‘When he was sitting in the house’  (Mt 9:10)

(75) eiectis omnibus (Lat. Tatian, cl. 2423) casting out-ABL all-ABL   (OHG Tatian, cl. 2465) allen úzaruuorphanen all-DAT casting out-ABL   ‘Having cast them all out’  (Mk 5:40)

(76) genu flexo (Lat. Tatian, cl. 1880) knee-ABL bent-ABL   giboganemo kneuue (OHG Tatian, cl. 1990) bent-DAT knee-DAT   ‘Kneeling down’  (Mk 1:40)

In Isidor, there are two changes to participle-subject order, as in (77). In this translation, there is one independent dative absolute with a pronominal subject, shown in (69), where the pronominal subject precedes the verb, conforming to the tendency identified for Tatian. We should remember, though, that the structure



Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 373

as such is infrequent and the number of occurrences is very low. Therefore, any generalisations as to the behaviour of nominal and pronominal subjects in dative absolute constructions in OE and OHG are difficult to formulate. (77) defuncta lege (Lat. Isidor, cl. 682) gone-ABL law-ABL   endi dheru euu zifareneru (OHG Isidor, cl. 599) and the law-DAT gone-DAT   ‘And with the law gone’

Generally speaking, the translators, when confronted with an ablative absolute construction, appear to have made text-specific, not language-specific decisions as to the best translation. Therefore, it seems that the dative absolute was either a native Germanic structure or a well-assimilated syntactic borrowing since it is difficult to imagine that translators who showed a great degree of independence from the source text in other contexts would suddenly use an element of foreign syntax in their translations. However, a discussion of the origin and exact status of the dative absolute in OE and OHG is beyond the scope of the present study. Readers with an interest in this topic are referred to Bauer (2000), van de Pol (2012), Ruppel (2013), Timofeeva (2010) and Crenshaw (2013). 8.8 Phraseological equivalence In this section, we present our analysis of fixed expressions in our corpus, limiting the data to clause-like formulas, that is to say, lexically recurrent clauses which are sequences of two or more syntactic phrases. A more specific distinction can be made with respect to the lexical flexibility of such patterns. One type can be described as lexically fixed formulas, which are recurrent sequences of non-substitutable fixed-order lexical items, e.g. et factum est ita (Genesis), vade in pace (Luke) or ut adimpleretur quod dictum est (Tatian). Some of these sequences are evidently intertextual, which confirms their formulaic status. Lexico-grammatical patterns are a more generic type of formulas, and can be defined as combinations of one or more obligatory lexical items and one or more lexically open, but grammatically restricted slots, e.g.: et+ reporting verb + object: et dixit ei (Genesis). In our analysis, we are interested in both types. In order to identify recurrent translations of Latin formulas, we developed an automatic procedure and applied it to each of the texts in our corpus. First, we extracted all distinct Latin element order patterns which occurred more than once in a given source text. The results of this step are illustrated in Tables 16

374 Element order in Old English and Old High German translations

and 17, which show the most frequent clauses comprising three phrases6 found in the source texts (a similar procedure was applied for clauses comprising two, four and more phrases). Table 16.  Frequencies of element order patterns found in clauses containing three elements in the Latin versions of Genesis, Luke and Tatian.7 Genesis

Luke

Tatian

Order

No.

Order

No.

Order

No.

c-cnj – v – do

96

rel-pron – v – comp

89

c-cnj – v – do

68

s-cnj – v – do

48

c-cnj – v – do

45

c-cnj – v – adv

38

rel-pron – v – adv

47

c-cnj – v – adv

26

c-cnj – v – io

37

c-cnj – v – adv

33

c-cnj – v – io

23

rel-pron – v – comp

37

s-cnj – v – adv

24

s-cnj – v – adv

22

rel-pron – v – do

28

v – sb – adv

23

c-cnj – sb – v

17

rel-pron – v – adv

23

rel-pron – v – do

19

c-cnj – v – sb

16

s-cnj – v – do

23

v – adv – sb

18

rel-pron – adv – v

16

rel-pron – adv – v

20

sb – v – comp

17

s-cnj – v – do

16

c-cnj – do – v

18

v – do – adv

16

rel-pron – v – adv

14

adv – v – io

17

Table 16 presents the three biblical translations from the corpus. It is clear that the frequency of clauses following the same element order pattern is much higher in these texts than in the other translations shown in Table 17; this shows that the syntax of the Latin Vulgate is to a great extent repetitive and there are many clauses which follow exactly the same patterns of element order, while in the other translations, greater diversity may be observed.

6.  In this procedure, the phrase was defined as a purely technical term, i.e. all elements from the corpus database which were annotated as belonging to the same clause were counted as phrases of this clause. This included some extra-clausal elements such as conjunctions or vocatives. This was a simple technical step in the procedure whose aim was to identify lexically recurrent clauses. When the results are interpreted in terms of syntax, such elements are not counted as clause elements. 7.  v: finite verb, sb: subject, comp: complement, do: direct object, io: indirect object, adv: adverbial, s-cnj: subordinating conjunction, c-cnj: coordinating conjunction, rel-pron: relative pronoun/particle, v2: non-finite verb, sb_abl: oblique subject in the ablative case.

Chapter 8.  Translation strategies 375



Table 17.  Frequencies of element order patterns found in clauses containing three elements in the Latin versions of Bede, Isidor and Physiologus. Bede

Isidor

Physiologus

Order

No.

Order

No.

Order

No.

rel-pron – adv – v

22

c-cnj – v – sb

11

c-cnj – v – adv

7

s-cnj – adv – v

17

sb – v – comp

 9

c-cnj – v – do

5

rel-pron – sb – v

14

c-cnj – sb – v

 8

rel-pro – v – comp

5

s-cnj – sb – v

14

c-cnj – v – do

 8

s-cnj – v – do

5

sb – v – comp

13

v – do – adv

 7

v – c-cnj – sb

4

adv – adv – v2

12

s-cnj – v – do

 7

s-cnj – sb – v

3

rel-pron – do – v

11

rel-pron – sb – v

 6

s-cnj – v – adv

2

v2 – adv – sb_abl

11

c-cnj – adv – v

 6

s-cnj – v – sb

2

c-cnj – sb – v

10

c-cnj – sb – comp

 5

sb – do – v

2

do – adv – v

10

c-cnj – v – adv

 5

adv – adv – comp

2

As the next step, we identified distinct lexical realisations of every Latin element order pattern and computed their frequencies. The complete statistics of lexically recurrent clauses of two or more elements for the Latin texts are listed in Table 18. Interestingly, we find a higher incidence of lexically recurrent clauses in Tatian, Genesis and Luke (the biblical translations) than in Bede, Physiologus and Isidor. Table 18.  Proportions of instances of lexically recurrent clauses in the total number of Latin clauses. Text

Clauses containing 2 phrases Recurrent

All

Recurrent

All

Recurrent

All

Genesis

   79 (17.0%)

462

67 (7.4%)

  905

  8 (1.4%)

568

Bede

  25 (4.7%)

533

  2 (