Pro-drop and Pronominal Subjects:
Reanalyzing features in the history of English
Elly van Gelderen – 11 February 2011
Abstract
In this paper, I investigate the conditions in Old English on the types of subject
pronouns, i.e. not using a pronoun, using an h-pronoun, or using an independent
demonstrative. In Old English, (verbal) agreement features are interpretable; they
are reanalyzed as uninterpretable in Early Middle English (with first and second
person leading the way). This means that referential pro-drop is grammatical in
Old English but disappears as the reanalysis is complete. Secondly, I argue that
Old English personal pronouns are not deictic/referential but that demonstrative
pronouns are. This situation reverses itself in early Middle English, due to both
internal factors (feature reanalysis) and external ones (contact).
1.
Introduction
The existence of pro-drop in Germanic is a controversial topic. It is generally assumed
that, although many of the old and modern languages have relatively rich inflection, only
topic-drop occurs. For instance, Hulk & van Kemenade (1995) argue that Old English
only has expletive pro-drop but not referential pro-drop. Jaeggli & Safir (1989: 33-34)
suggest that verb-second and pro-drop are incompatible and hence exclude pro-drop in
Germanic.
There are other views. For instance, Sigurðsson (1993) shows Old Icelandic to
have both pro-drop and topic-drop and van Gelderen (2000) argues that referential prodrop occurs in all persons and numbers in Old English, Axel (2007) argues that Old High
German has pro-drop as well but that it is restricted to the main clause.
In this paper, I argue that Old English has subject pro-drop due to the
interpretable nature of the phi-features on the verb (a possibility mentioned in Holmberg
2005). For the pupuses of this paper, interpretable features are those that contribute to the
meaning of the sentence whereas uninterpretable features are purely grammatical and do
not contribute to the meaning. Pro-drop disappears as the reanalysis to uninterpretable
features takes place. It also has object pro-drop but this is probably licensed in another
way and disappears later (cf. Visser 1963: 525). I then discuss Old English personal
pronouns and argue they are not deictic/referential but that demonstrative pronouns are.
This situation reverses itself in early Middle English, due to both internal factors (feature
reanalysis) and external ones (contact). The outline is as follows. In section 2, I first
distinguish the various null subjects and in section 3 I sketch the situation in Old
Icelandic, Old High German, and Old French. Old English pro-drop differs from each of
these. Section 4 turns to overt pronouns and demonstratives and section 5 is a conclusion.
2.
Distinguishing various null subjects
Languages freely allow non-finite verbs to have empty subjects, usually indicated as PRO,
as in (1). This PRO is different from the null subject of a finite verb, usually indicated as
pro, as in (2).
(1)
I want PRO to go.
(2)
pro
quier-o
want-1S
PRO
ven-ir
Spanish
go-INF
`I want to go.’
There have been numerous accounts that I will not go through here. Some of the better
known are Taraldsen (1978) and Chomsky (1981: 240ff.) who argue that rich or strong
agreement, as in (2), is responsible for licensing the null subject. Rizzi (1986: 519) has
claimed that certain heads (e.g. V or I) license pro under government and Ura (1994) that
pro is licensed by Case or phi-features. As we will see in section 3, there is something to be
said for a connection between features and pro-drop.
Apart from referential pro and PRO, expletive pro occurs, as in (3), and pseudoreferential pro, as in (4).
2
(3)
Es muy interesante
Spanish
exp is very interesting
`It is very interesting.'
(4)
llueve
Spanish
exp rains, i.e. `it rains.'
English lacks pro and expletive pro but has a limited form of a fourth type of null subject,
namely a null topic, as in (5) and (6). These can be used if one knows the topic of the
sentence, first person singular in (5) and second or third person in (6). Topic drop is only
possible if the topic is at the beginning of the root clause, as evidenced by the
ungrammaticality of (7) and (8). This point will be crucial in arguing that Old English has
pro-drop (as well as topic drop).
(5)
Hope to talk to you soon.
(6)
Shouldn't have done it.
(7)
*I knew that shouldn't have done it.
(8)
*Later hope to talk to you.
Other modern Germanic languages are similar to English in allowing PRO and
empty-topics, e.g. Dutch but here the topic left can be an object as well, as in (9). This
difference, I assume, is due to the fronted verb heb `have’ allowing the drop in Dutch.
(9)
Heb ik niet gedaan
Dutch
have I not done
`That, I haven’t done.’
Languages such as Thai, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese are well-known for leaving both
subject and object topics out, as in (10).
(10)
he le
drink PST
Chinese
`I drank the tea’.
3
The verbs in Chinese are uninflected for subject or object; the empty arguments are
licensed by the discourse, very much in the way that they are in (5), (6), and (9), except
that Chinese doesn’t have a positional requirement that the left out topic be the first
constituent (see e.g. Huang 1984 for an early discussion).
Apart from Thai, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese, objects can be left out in Old
Icelandic and other languages (see Rizzi 1986). Ohlander (1949: 109-110) and Visser
(1963: 525-528) list Old and Middle English examples, as in (11) to
(11)
Me to grunde teah fah feondscaða fæste hæfde grim on grape
Old English
me to ground pulled hostile dire foe safe kept angry in grasp
`an evil sea creature pulled me to the bottom, had me fast in its grip.’
(Visser 1963: 527; Beowulf 553-555, Fulk et al edition)
(12)
`We sal', he said, `do nu ful wele'
Middle English
`We shall, he said, do it now very well.' (Visser 1963; Cursor Mundi, Cotton,
13492, Morris edition)
I will not have anything to say on object-drop in this paper.
Having introduced the basic distinctions among null subjects, I’ll now turn to
older languages and to Old English.
3.
Old English null subjects
In this section, I first briefly discuss pro-drop in Old High German and Old Icelandic
before turning to Old English.
Axel (2007) argues that Old High German has pro-drop in main clauses that is
licensed by verb-movement to the left of the null subject. An example is given in (13)
where the verb hahet moves to the second position and licenses a null subject to its right.
(13)
Sume hah-et
in
cruci
Old High German
4
some hang-2P
to
cross
`Some of them, you will crucify.’ (Axel 2007: 293; Monsee Fragments)
Axel’s evidence for the role of verb-movement is that there is no pro-drop in subordinate
clauses and that there are very few verb-initial structures with pro-drop unless they are
yes-no questions. Adams (1987) similarly claims that verb-fronting in the main clause is
relevant in Old French. Later in this section, I will show that Old English is quite
different from Old High German and Old French in having pro-drop in subordinate
clauses.
Sigurðsson (1993) argues that Old Icelandic has both pro-drop, expletive-drop,
and topic-drop but that, although the inflection was rich, pro-drop wasn’t licensed by
agreement but by a preceding NP. Examples of pro-drop and topic-drop are given in (14)
and (15) respectively. In (14), the left-out third person singular goes back to the first third
person not to Hoskuldr and, in (15), there is strictly speaking no antecedent but an
implied topic.
(14)
ok kom hann þangat ok var Hoskuldr uti er reið i tún
Old Icelandic
and came he there and was Hoskuldr outside when (he) rode into field
`And he came there and Hoskuldr was outside when he rode into the field.’
(Sigurðsson 1993: 248)
(15)
þa sigldi hann ihaf oc fengu veþr stór
Old Icelandic
then sailed he to-ocean and (they) got-P weather big
`Then he sailed and he and his crew got bad weather.’ (Sigurðsson 1993: 252)
The topic-drop in (15) is possible, according to Sigurðsson, even without an antecedent,
whereas the pro-drop in (14) needs an antecedent.
The Old English data show expletive null subjects, as in (16), that I will not
discuss further, as well as null subjects, as in (17), that have to be pro-drop and not topicdrop because the initial position is taken up by an adverb.
(16)
Nap nihtscua, norþan sniwde
Old English
5
darkened night-shadow, north-from snowed
`The shadow of the night darkened, it snowed from the North’.
(Seafarer 31, Krapp & Dobie edition)
(17)
Nu scylun hergan hefaenricaes uard
Old English
Now must praise heavenly-kingdom guard
`Now we must praise the lord of the heavenly kingdom.'
(beginning of the Northumbrian version of Caedmon’s Hymn).
Further evidence that Old English has pro-drop is that subjects in subordinate
clauses are frequently null. Pogatscher (1901: 261), for instance, gives 176 null subjects
“im nebensatze”, as in (18) and (19).
(18)
þæt ic gumcystum godne funde beaga bryttan breac þonne moste
Old English
that I manly-virtue good found ring dispenser enjoyed as-long could
`that I found a noble bestower of rings and enjoyed it as long as I could.'
(Beowulf 1486-7)
(19)
swylcum gifeþe bið
þæt þone hilderæs hal gedigeð
such given be
that the battle-storm unhurt endure
Old English
`May it be that he will withstand unhurt the heat of the battle.' (Beowulf 299-300)
Even as for late Old English Aelfric, Schrader (1887: 43) says "die verwendung des
pronomens [ist] häufig, doch reicht . . . das verb auch allein noch aus".
In addition to pro-drop, there is probably topic-drop in (20), as in Old Icelandic
(15). This topic drop is much more like Chinese than Modern Germanic in that it is not
positionally licensed. In (20), the passage has Moses as the topic but the null reference is
not restricted to initial position.
(20)
Heah wæs þæt handlean and him hold frea
high was that reward and him kind lord
gesealde wæpna geweald wið wraðra gryre,
gave weapens power against hostile terror
6
Old English
ofercom mid þy campe cneomaga fela
overcame with it in-fight warriors many
(Talking about Moses), `Great was the reward and God was gracious to him (=Moses)
and gave him weapons against hostile terror. He overcame many warriors with it in
battle.' (Exodus 19-21, Krapp edition)
Having shown that Old English has pro-drop, let’s look at what licenses it. Prodrop isn’t licensed by Verb-movement as in Old High German because it freely appears
in subordinate clauses, as we’ve seen in (18) and (19). In Old English, constructions such
as (17) and (21) show that pro-drop could occur sentence-initially in declarative
sentences.
(21)
Wæs þeaw hyra þæt hie oft wæron an wig gearwe,
was custom their that they often were one war ready
wæs seo þeod tilu. Sigon þa to slæpe
was that people good sank then to sleep
`It was their custom always to be ready for war. They were a good people. They
went to sleep.' (Beowulf 1246-51)
This means that verb-movement is not relevant to licensing null subjects though (21)
could be argued to be topic-drop.
Having established there is pro-drop occurs in Old English, we need to ask what
licenses it since it isn’t verb-movement. I think the asymmetry of where pro-drop occurs
sheds some light on this question. Although all subjects are dropped, there is a person
split. For instance, Berndt (1956) shows that pro-drop occurs more with third than with
first and second persons. I reproduce his data in Table 1 for the Lindisfarne and
Rushworth Gospels, but see also van Gelderen (2000: chapter 3). The two sections of
each represent different dialect areas: Lindisfarne and the second part of Rushworth are
Northumbrian and the first part of Rushworth is Mercian. The dialect difference is not so
important; the main point to the table is to show that first and second person pronouns act
very differently.
7
Two sections of Lindisfarne
Two sections of Rushworth
1S
9/212 (=96%)
9/656 (=99%)
6/191 (=97%)
21/528 (=96%)
1P
0/53 (=100%)
1/120 (=99%)
1/44 (=98%)
2/100 (=98%)
2S
16/103 (=87%)
22/308 (=93%)
12/90 (=88%)
22/226 (=91%)
2P
10/206 (=95%)
21/428 (=95%)
20/168 (=89%)
62/302 (=83%)
3S
445/116 (=21%)
1292/225 (=15%)
223/246 (=54%)
995/186 (=16%)
3P
263/108 (=29%)
618/154 (=20%)
130/141 (=52%)
528/124 (=19%)
Table 1: Numbers of Null versus Overt Subject in Lindisfarne and Rushworth (Glosses)
I’d like to argue that this person split indicates that agreement is involved in licensing
pro-drop. This would make third person agreement interpretable but first and second
uninterpretable or at least variable. If we look at one of the agreement patterns in Table 2,
we see that all persons are marked separately in the singular.
Present
S
1
-e
2
-(e)s(t)
3
-(e)ð
P
Preterite
S
-að
1
-de
2
-des(t)
3
-de
P
-dun, -don, dan
Table 2: Old English Verbal agreement in SV with weak verbs
This is also true for the dialect of the Lindisfarne and Rushworth Glosses. Table 3 shows
the verbal indicative inflections for pro-drop and pronouns preceding the verb, based on
Berndt (1956: 94-131), for the first part of Lindisfarne and the first part of Rushworth, i.e.
the Northumbrian and Mercian dialect respectively.
Lindisfarne (first part)
Rushworth (first part)
8
with pronoun
without
with pronoun
without
1S
-o
-o
-e
-u
2S
-as, -es, -s, -st
---
-es(t), -ast, -st
-est
3S
-eð, -es, -as
-eð, -es, -as, -æs
-eþ, eth, -aþ,
-eþ, -aþ, -æþ, -iþ
Table 3: Rushworth inflections on the strong indicative verb with and without a pronoun
What we see is that, even though the inflection on the verb with preceding pronoun is
variable, the ones with pro-drop are typically stronger, e.g. –st in the second person, not es. Whether the pronoun precedes or follows seems not to be relevant in these early texts.
In later texts, verb-movement constructions, as in (22) to (24), result in less
inflection when the pronoun follows. This inflection is –e and levels first and second
person in late Old English.
(22)
Nelle we ðæs race na leng teon
not-want we that argument no longer extend
`We don't want to extend that argument any more.' (Ælfric, Homilies I, 88.32)
(23)
a.
Nu hæbbe ge gehyred ...
Now have you heard (Ælfric, Homilies I, 280.4)
b.
Ac wite ge ðæt nan man ne mæg fullice ymbe god sprecan
But know you that no man not may fully/foully around god speak
(Ælfric, Homilies I, 286.15)
(24)
a.
Wendes ðu ðurh wuldor ðæt þu woruld ahtest
believe you through splendor that you the world own (Christ and Satan 59)
b.
yfele cwæde ðu þæt ðu þa hal3æn mæ3ne to 3yrdon næmdest
evilly spoke you that you the holy power to rods named
`You spoke evil when you ascribed the holy power to the branches.' (History of
the Holy Root Tree, 16.5-6, Napier edition)
That means first and second person agreement has leveled to –e and that pro-drop is
restricted here. By the time of Aelfric, this loss is very obvious, as shown in Table 3.
9
Inflection:
-e/Ø
full
suppletive
total
__________________________________________
Homilies I
1P
49
2
3
54
2P
46
2
3
51
1P
49
1
2
52
2P
63
2
7
72
Table 4:
Loss of inflection in VS constructions in Aelfric
Homilies II
Such loss does not occur with third person, as shown in (25).
(25)
Þonne hæfð he wiðsacen
`Then he has rejected.' (Aelfric, Homilies II, 27.278)
The account I would therefore like to suggest is that agreement features in Old
English are interpretable unlike in present-day English, as the prescriptively
ungrammatical (26) shows. In (26), native speakers report that neither the Case on the
pronouns not the agreement on the verb tells them who the Agent or Subject is but that
the word order is the main clue. This means agreement in Modern English is not
interpretable in a Minimalist framework (see Chomsky 1995 and later) but that position is.
(26)
me
see
he
made-up English
`I see him’.
Starting with first and second person agreement, a reanalysis occurs in late Old English
from interpretable to uninterpretable. One can think of this as strength as well. In Old
English, pro-drop is possible but there is a person split suggesting that, if we think of prodrop as `strength’ of the tense and agreement features, third person features are the ones
that retain the interpretable features the longest. Once the interpretable features are lost
10
on the verb, a pronoun with interpretable features becomes obligatory. This is also clear
from the agreement where the same split occurs in VS position.
The null subject situation in Old English can be summarized as follows. (a) Prodrop occurs in all persons but more with third person than with first and second; (b) there
is no requirement of V-fronting for pro-drop to occur; and (c) there is loss of agreement
in VS that levels first and second person inflection. The post-verbal position is the one
where the pronoun can be seen as the interpretable component and that then spreads to all
inflection. I’ll turn to pronouns next.
4.
Old English overt pronouns and demonstratives
Apart form pro-drop, Old English had a series of personal and demonstrative pronouns.
As Traugott (1992: 171) states, “pronominal se had a wider distribution” and could refer
to an animate object where Modern English would use she or he. A passage with both is
given in (27). The demonstrative is used for emphasis.
(27)
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah
often Scyld Scefing shadows crowd many family mead-benches away-took
egsode eorlas syððan ærest wearð feasceaft funden he þæs frofre gebad
scared brave-men since early became poor found he that consolation waited
weox under wolcnum weorðmyndum þah oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
grew under clouds honor accepted/grew until him every that sitting-around
ofer hronrade hyran scolde | gomban gyldan þæt wæs god cyning
across sea obey should | tribute pay that was good king
`Scyld Scefing often drove away troops from the mead-halls and terrified many. He had
once been a foundling but he found consolation and grew in glory until everyone had to
pay tribute to him. That/he was a good king’. (Beowulf 4-11)
11
In (28), the demonstrative se may be used because there are two topics and Grendel, the
last mentioned noun, is not meant. I have not given a word-by-word translation but have
bolded antecedents and pronouns.
(28)
þæt fram ham gefrægn Higelaces þegn, god mid Geatum, Grendles dæda; se wæs
moncynnes mægenes strengest on þæm dæge þysses lifes, æþele ond eacen. Het
him yðlidan godne gegyrwan, cwæð, he guðcyning ofer swanrade secean wolde,
mærne þeoden, þa him wæs manna þearf. ðone siðfæt him snotere ceorlas
lythwon logon, þeah he him leof wære.
`Hygelac’s thane heard about Grendel’s deeds while in Geatland; he (=Hygelac’s thane)
was mankind’s strongest man on earth, noble and powerful. (He) ordered himself a good
boat prepared and said that he wanted to seek the king over the sea since he (=the king)
needed men. Wise men did not stop him (=Hygelac’s thane) though he was dear to
them.’ (Beowulf 194-98)
(29) is an Old English sentence both Traugott (1992: 171) and Kiparsky (2002) use to
show the difference between pronouns and demonstratives; I have provided more context
and bolded the relevant forms.
(29)
Þa clypode an ðæra manna Zebeus gehaten and cwæð to ðam cyninge;
`Then cried one of-the men Zebeus called and said to the king:
Eala ðu cyning þas fulan wuhta þu scoldest awurpan of ðinum rice.
Oh you king the foul creatures you should throw-out of your kingdom
ðylæs ðe hi mid heora fylðe us ealle besmiton;
in-case that they [= the foul creatures] with their filth us all affect
Hi habbað mid him awyriedne engel. mancynnes feond.
They [= the foul creatures] have with them corrupt angel, mankind’s enemy
and se hæfð andweald on ðam mannum ðe heora scyppend forseoð.
and he [the angel] has power over those men that their creator despise
and to deofolgyldum bugað;
12
and to idols bow.’ (DOE Segment 8 Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, second series M.
Godden 1979, p. 283. 110 – 115)
The question arises how best to formulate this rule. Dutch is similar in using both
pronouns, although the demonstrative is more frequent than in Old English. Comrie
(2000) argues that the "demonstrative is used where there are two potential antecedents
for a pronoun. ... The demonstrative is the marked choice. ..., it must establish less
expected coreference". Sometimes, in Dutch as in Old English, both personal and
demonstrative are possible, as in (30), but sometimes lead to unclarity.
(30)
Hij had Stern gesproken en aan deze enige woorden en zaken uitgelegd, die hij
niet begreep. Die Stern niet begreep, meen ik.
`He had talked to Stern and explained to this one some words and matters which
he did not understand. Which Stern did not understand, I mean'. (Multatuli, Max
Havelaar, chap 4, van Gelderen 1998).
In (30), there are two possible antecedents, hij and Stern. The proximal deze refers to
Stern and the second hij is ambiguous but most likely going back to the initial topic hij.
Hence, the clarification in the second sentence.
By Middle English this use of the demonstrative, as in (29), disappears and we see
new pronouns appear, namely she and they. The OED states that “the districts in which
she or sho first appears in the place of heo are marked by the abundance of Scandinavian
elements in the dialect and place-names.” Most of the other Germanic sister-languages
have a separate s- pronoun for the feminine as well. Early instances from a Scandinavianinfluenced text are (31) and (32). In another northern text, the Ormulum from 1200, the
feminine singular pronoun is always 3ho, as in (33).
(31)
þæræfter toforan Candelmæssan on Windlesoran him to wife forgyfen Aðelis &
syððan to cwene gehalgod. seo wæs þæs heretogan dohtor of Luuaine.
13
`thereafter before Candlemas at Windsor was given him to wife Adela and after
hallowed queen. She was the duke of Louvain’s daughter.’ (Peterborough
Chronicle 1121, Thorpe edition)
(32)
He brohte his wif to Engleland. & dide hire in þe castel on Canteberi. God
wimman scæ wæs. oc scæ hedde litel blisse mid him. & Crist ne wolde ðæt he
sculde lange rixan. … & his sune Henri toc to þe rice. & te cuen of France
todælde fra þe king. & scæ com to þe iunge eorl Henr&e;. & he toc hire to wiue.
`He brought his wife to England and put her in a castle in Canterbury. She was a
good woman but she had little bliss with him. And Christ didn’t want him to have
a long rule … and his son Henry took the throne and the queen of France parted
from the king and she came to the young count Henry and he took her to wife.’
(Peterborough Chronicle 1140)
(33)
3ho wass … Elysabæþ 3ehatenn
`She was called Elisabeth.’ (Ormulum 115, Holt edition)
The introduction of the third person plural pronoun they is due to Scandinavian influence
and occurs in the same set of texts, for instance in (34).
(34)
& swa þe33 leddenn heore lif Till þatt te33 wærenn alde
`and so they led their lives until they were old.’ (Ormulum 125-6)
Pronouns also start being used demonstratively, as the OED puts it, as in (35), and from
the late Old English through the Middle English period, special reflexives are introduced,
starting with 3rd person, as in (36).
(35)
For he and he had samen ben, forwit selcuth wrath.
`Because they had together been debating.’ (Cursor Mundi, Cotton 16161)
(36)
mon forgit his selfes ... he sceal hine selfne geðencean
man forgets his-GEN self-GEN ... he must him-ACC self-ACC remember
`man forgets himself ... he must remember himself.' (Alfred, Pastoral Care, 34.7,
Sweet edition)
14
These changes seem to suggest a `strengthening’ of the third person features in the
pronoun and a shift in the relationship. I would argue that the reinforcement through
external pronouns, she and they, brought about a reanalysis of the features of the pronoun
as deictic.
In Old English, the demonstrative not only occurs independently but also occurs
before a noun to indicate definiteness, as in (37); by Middle English, this demonstrative is
phonetically reduced, as in (38).
(37)
hu
ða
æþelingas
ellen
fremedon
how
those-NOM.P nobles-NOM.P courage did
'how those nobles performed heroic acts.' (Beowulf 3)
(38)
& gaddresst swa þe clene corn All fra þe chaff togeddre
and gather-2S so the clean wheat all from the chaff together
`and so you gather the clear wheat from the chaff.’
(Ormulum 1484-5, Holt edition)
This weakening occurs first in the Peterborough Chronicle and Ormulum, the same texts
we have seen before as showing the earliest change in the pronoun system. The time the
change occurs is quite abrupt. According to Pysz (2007), there are changes in the forms
of the demonstratives. In the Peterborough Chronicle 65% have the correct case forms
before 1121; between 1121-1131 46% are correct; but after 1131 only 13% is `correct’, if
we compare it to Old English.
If the demonstrative is used to solve ambiguity in Old English, how is ambiguity
handles once that possibility disappears? There are some early `fixes’, as in (39) and (40),
again in the same important texts.
(39)
Rihht swa summ he þe forrme mann Ær oferrcumenn haffde
just so as he the former man earlier overcome had (Ormulum 12494-5)
(40)
þin forrme win iss swiþe god, þin lattre win iss bettre.
`Your earlier wine is very good, your later wine is better.’ (Ormulum 15409)
15
So the main changes in Early Middle English are (a) a loss in demonstratives for
personal use, (b) the introduction of new pronouns (third person and reflexive), and (c) a
shift in demonstratives (to articles and loss of gender).
We can also put this in terms of features. The features of the demonstrative are
interpretable (indicated by the i- for person and deixis). As it grammaticalizes, it loses
some features (the language user picks the word with fewer features). In van Gelderen
(forthcoming), I explain the features more.
Demonstrative
[i-phi]
[i-loc]
article
pronoun
C
[u-phi]
[i-phi]
…
Figure 1:
Feature changes
There are changes after the Middle English, most notably a reinforcement of the
article, as in (41) and (42).
(46)
To Samaria and them partes. (1596 H. Clapham, Bible Hist. 92, from the OED)
(47)
Oh they used to be ever so funny houses you know and in them days and The er
you never used to see in the oh a lot of houses and you never used to see big
windows like these. They used to have big windows, but they used to a all be
them there little tiny ones like that.... Used to have to be very rather experienced
in them days to do this here net mending. (BNC - FYD 72; 112)
To finish, I think there is an interesting distributional disparity in registers, as is clear
from the data in Table 5. Spoken English shows more use of that. This difference could
be a sign of renewal of the person features in D, a change in progress. In the same corpus,
16
as shown in Table 6, the use of the postnominal there is much more frequent in the
spoken genre, as is expected.
spoken
fiction
newspaper
the
409960 (4.1%)
836836 (5.3%)
644043 (6%) 1,129,235 (7.4%)
that
147335 (1.5%)
78129 (.5%)
19501 (.2%)
32284 (.2%)
total
10,000,000
15,900,000
10,500,000
15,300,000
Table 5:
academic
The article the and demonstrative that in the BNC (the BNC at byu.edu)
spoken
fiction
newspaper
academic
that (A) N
26470 (.27)
23718 (.14)
7148 (.07)
16330 (.1)
that (A) N there
281
34
2
0
% with there
1%
.14%
.03%
0%
Table 6:
5.
That and there in the BNC
Conclusion
Two sets of changes have been discussed. First, the agreement features are reanalyzed
from interpretable to uninterpretable, with the inevitable result that a subject becomes
obligatory. This is a typical stage in the subject cycle. Secondly, pronouns and
demonstratives undergo two types of change, internal and external. The demonstratives
lose features in a grammaticalization process and pronouns are renewed externally.
Abbreviations
BNC British National Corpus
F
feminine
i-
interpretable
M
masculine
N
neuter
17
NOM nominative
OED Oxford English Dictionary
P
plural
ps
person
S
singular
u-
uninterpretable
2
second person
References
Adams, Marianne 1987. From Old French to the Theory of Pro-drop. NLLT 5: 1-32.
Axel, Katrin 2007. Studies on Old High German Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barbosa, Pilar 2009. Two kinds of subject pro. Studia Linguistica 63.1: 2-58.
Berndt, Rolf 1956. Form und Funktion des Verbums im nördlichen Spätaltenglischen.
Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Chomsky, Noam 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Comrie, Bernard 2000. ‘Pragmatic binding: demonstratives as anaphors in Dutch’. In
Matthew Juge and Jeri Moxley (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 50–61. Berkeley: Berkeley
Linguistics Society.
Gelderen, Elly van 1998. Demonstratives as Pronouns in Dutch. ms.
Gelderen, Elly van 2000 A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Gelderen, Elly van forthcoming. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford: OUP.
Faarlund, Jan Terje 2007. From clitic to affix: the Norwegian definite article. ms.
Holmberg, Anders 2005. Is there a Little Pro? Linguistic Inquiry 36.4: 533-564.
Huang, James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic
Inquiry 15: 531-574.
Hulk, Aafke & Ans van Kemenade 1995. "Verb Second, Pro-drop, Functional Projections
and Language Change". In: Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts (eds), Clause Structure
and Language Change 227-256. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18
Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Ken Safir 1989. The Null Subject Parameter and Parametric Theory.
In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Ken Safir (eds), The Null Subject Parameter 1-44.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kiparsky, Paul 2002. Disjoint Reference and the Typology of Pronouns. In Ingrid
Kaufmann and Barbara Stiebels (eds.), More than Words. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag.
Ohlander, Urban 1943. Omission of the Object in English. Studia Neophilologica 16:
105-127.
Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online version.
Pogatscher, Alois 1901. Unausgedrücktes Subject im Altenglischen. Anglia 23: 261-301.
Pysz, Agnieszka 2007. The usage of demonstratives in the Peterborough Chronicle
against the background of the Old English paradigm. In Alexander Bergs and
Janne Skaffari (eds.), The language of the Peterborough Chronicle, 57-75.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
Rizzi, Luigi 1986. Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17:
501-57.
Schrader, Bernard 1887. Studien zur Aelfricschen Syntax. Jena dissertation.
Sigurðsson, Halldor 1993. Argument-drop in Old Icelandic. Lingua 89: 247-280.
Taraldsen, Tarald 1978. "On the NIC, Vacuous Application and the That-trace Filter", ms.
Traugott, Elizabeth 1992. Syntax. In Richard Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge History of the
English Language I; Old English, 168-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ura, Hiroyuki 1994. Varieties of Raising and the Feature-based Bare Phrase Structure
Theory. MIT Occasional Working papers in Linguistics 7.
Visser, F. 1963. An Historical Syntax of the English Grammar, Vol I. Leiden: Brill.
Wood, Johanna 2003. Definiteness and Number: Determiner Phrase and Number Phrase
in the History of English. ASU PhD.
Primary texts
British National Corpus. Online corpus of 100-million words. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
or http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/.
19
Fulk, R.D, Robert Bjork & John Niles (eds) 2008. Klaeber’s Beowulf. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Godden, Malcolm (ed.) 1979. Ælfric's Catholic Homilies, the second series. London:
Oxford University Press. [EETS SS 5].
Krapp, G.P. 1931. The Junius Manuscript. New York: Columbia University Press.
Krapp, G.P. & Kirk Dobbie, E.V. (eds.) 1936. The Exeter Book. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Morris, Richard (ed.) 1874-1893. Cursor Mundi, 7 Parts. Trübner & Co.
Napier, Arthur (ed.) 1894. History of the Holy Rood-tree. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner & Co.
Sweet, Henry 1871 [1934]. King Alfred's West-Saxon Version of Gregory's Pastoral Care.
London: Oxford University Press.
Thorpe, Benjamin 1844-46. The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 2 volumes.
London: Ælfric Society. [1971 New York reprint].
Thorpe, Benjamin 1861. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle I and II. London: Longman.
20