Abstract
Although Verb-Object (VO) is the basic unmarked constituent order of predicates in Present-Day English, in earlier stages of the language Object-Verb (OV) is the preferred pattern in some syntactic contexts. OV predicates are significantly frequent in Old and Middle English, and are still attested up to 1550, when they “appear to dwindle away” (Moerenhout & van der Wurff 2005: 83). This study looks at OV in Early Modern English (EModE), using a corpus-based perspective and statistical modelling to explore a number of textual, syntactic, and semantic/processing variables which may account for what by that time had already become a marked, though not yet archaic, word-order pattern. The data for the study were retrieved from the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (1500–1710) and the Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (c.1410–1695), the largest electronic parsed collections of EModE texts. The findings reveal a preference for OV in speech-related text types, which are less constrained by the rules of grammar, in marked syntactic contexts, and in configurations not subject to the general linearisation principles of end-weight and given-new. Where these principles are complied with, the probability of VO increases.
References
CEEC Project Team. 2006. Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, parsed version. Annotated by Ann Taylor, Arja Nurmi, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Terttu Nevalainen. University of York & University of Helsinki.
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs. 2004. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani. 2010. Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.
Allen, Cynthia. 2000. Obsolescence and sudden death in syntax: The decline of the verb-final order in early Middle English. In Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg & C. B. McCully (ed.), Generative theory and corpus studies: A dialogue from 10 ICEHL, Mouton de Gruyter. 3–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110814699.3
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts. 2005. Changing EPP parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change. English Language and Linguistics 9(1). 5–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674305001528
Bybee, Joan. 2015. Language change. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096768
Chongsuvivatwong, Virasakdi. 2018. epiDisplay: Epidemiological Data Display Package. http://medipe.psu.ac.th/epicalc
Culpeper, Jonathan & Merja Kytö. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues. Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.
Elenbaas, Marion. 2007. The synchronic and diachronic syntax of the English verb-particle combination. PhD thesis. Utrecht: LOT.
Elenbaas, Marion. 2013. Motivations for particle verb word order in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 17(3). 489–511. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674313000130
Elenbaas Marion & Ans van Kemenade. 2014. Verb particles and OV/VO in the history of English. Studia Linguistica 68(1). 140–167.
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 2: 1066–1476, Cambridge University Press. 207–408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264754.005
Fischer, Olga & Wim van der Wurff. 2006. Syntax. In Richard Hogg & David Denison (eds.), A history of the English language, Cambridge University Press. 109–198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791154.004
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wurff. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612312
Foster, Tony & Wim van der Wurff. 1995. The survival of object-verb order in Middle English: Some data. Neophilologus 79. 309–327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999787
Fox, John & Sanford Weisberg. 2011. An R companion to applied regression. SAGE.
Gelderen, Elly van. 2018. Analyzing syntax through texts. Old, Middle, and Early Modern English. Edinburgh University Press.
Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. Continuum.
Harrell, Frank E., Jr. 2019. rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/rms
Hoorick, Bart Van. 1994. Pragmatic positions and the history of English word order. University of Amsterdam.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530
Ingham, Richard. 2000. Negation and OV order in Late Middle English. Journal of Linguistics 36(1). 13–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226799007963
Ingham, Richard. 2002. Negated subjects and objects in 15th-century nonliterary English. Language Variation and Change 14(3). 291–322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439450214302X
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. The MIT Press.
Kempen, Gerard & Karin Harbusch. 2017. Frequential test of (S)OV as unmarked word order in Dutch and German clauses. A serendipitous corpus-linguistic experiment. In Hilke Reckman, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn & Rint Sybesma (eds.), Crossroads semantics. Computation, experiment and grammar, John Benjamins. 107–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.210.07kem
Koopman, Willem. 2005. Transitional syntax: Postverbal pronouns and particles in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 9(1). 47–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067430500153X
Kroch, Anthony S. & Ann Taylor. 2000. Verb-object order in early Middle English. In Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas & Anthony Warner (eds.), Diachronic syntax. Models and mechanisms, Oxford University Press. 132–163.
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge University Press.
Lightfoot, David W. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. The MIT Press.
Moerenhout, Mike & Wim van der Wurff. 2005. Object-verb order in early sixteenth-century English prose: An exploratory study. English Language and Linguistics 9(1). 83–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674305001553
Moerenhout, Mike & Wim van der Wurff. 2010. Remnants of the old order: OV in the Paston Letters. English Studies 81(6). 513–530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1076/enst.81.6.513.9184
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. Garland.
Pintzuk, Susan. 2002. Verb-Object order in Old English: Variation as grammatical competition. In David W. Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, Oxford University Press. 276–300.
Pintzuk, Susan. 2005. Arguments against a universal base: Evidence from Old English. English Language and Linguistics 9(1). 115–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674305001565
Pintzuk, Susan & Ann Taylor. 2006. The loss of OV order in the history of English. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, Blackwell. 249–278.
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, Academic Press. 223–256.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org
Randall, Beth. 2008. CorpusSearch 2 users guide. http://corpussearch.sourceforge.net/CS-manual/Contents.html
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. 3: Early Modern English 1476–1776, Cambridge University Press. 187–331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264761.005
Roberts, Ian. 1997. Directionality and word order change in the history of English. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, Cambridge University Press. 397–427.
Seoane, Elena. 2017. Chapter 5: Syntax. In Laurel Brinton & Alexander Bergs (eds.), The history of English. Vol, 4: Early Modern English, Mouton de Gruyter. 68–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110525069-005
Shih, Stephanie & Jason Grafmiller. 2011. Weighing in on end weight. Paper delivered at the 85th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Pittsburg, PA, 9–11 January.
Szmrecsányi, Benedikt M. 2004. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In Gérard Purnelle, Cédrick Fairon & Anne Dister (eds.), Le poids des mots: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis, March 10–12, 2004, Vol. 2, Presses universitaires de Louvain. 1032–1039.
Takizawa, Naohiro. 2012. A corpus-driven functional analysis of the SOV construction in Present-Day English. Paper delivered at the 4th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics.
Trips, Carola. 2002. From OV to VO in Early Middle English. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.60
Vallduví, Enric & Elisabet Engdahl. 1996. The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics 34. 459–519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1996.34.3.459
Wurff, Wim van der. 1997. Deriving object-verb order in late Middle English. Journal of Linguistics 33(2). 485–509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226797006531
Wurff, Wim van der & Tony Foster. 1997a. Object-verb order in 16th century English: A study of its frequency and status. In Raymond Hickey & Stanisław Puppel (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: A festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday, Vol. 1, Mouton de Gruyter. 439–453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110820751.439
Wurff, Wim van der & Tony Foster. 1997b. From syntax to discourse: The function of object-verb order in Late Middle English. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Studies in Middle English linguistics, Mouton de Gruyter. 135–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110814194.135
Venables, W. N. & B. D. Ripley. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. Springer. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2
Yaruss, J. Scott. 1999. Utterance length, syntactic complexity, and childhood stuttering. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 42(2). 329–344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4202.329