Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:31:59.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The origin of the Northern Subject Rule: subject positions and verbal morphosyntax in older English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2014

NYNKE DE HAAS  and
ANS VAN KEMENADE
NYNKE DE HAAS
Affiliation:
Dept of Languages, Literature and Communication, Utrecht University, Trans 10 3512JK Utrecht, The Netherlandsn.k.dehaas@uu.nl
ANS VAN KEMENADE
Affiliation:
CLS/Dept of English Language and Culture, Radboud University Nijmegen, PO Box 9103 6500HD Nijmegen, The Netherlandsa.vankemenade@let.ru.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents new evidence for the early history of the Northern Subject Rule in the form of an exhaustive corpus study of plural present-tense indicative verb forms in Northern and Northern Midlands early Middle English, analysed in relation to their syntactic context, including subject type and subject–verb adjacency. We show that variation between -∅/e/n and -s endings was conditioned by both subject type and adjacency in a core area around Yorkshire, whereas in more peripheral areas, the adjacency condition was weaker and often absent.

We present an analysis of these facts in relation to the presence of multiple subject positions in early English, which we show contra earlier literature to be relevant for Northern English as well, We view -∅/e/n endings as ‘true’ agreement, which in the relevant dialects is limited to contexts with pronominal subjects in a high subject position, Spec,AgrSP; other forms of agreement (-s or -th) represent default inflection occurring elsewhere. This analysis supports the hypothesis that the NSR arose when the extant morphological variation in Northern Old English was reanalysed as an effect of pre-existing multiple subject positions.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 49 - 81
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

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

Footnotes

1

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and Meg Laing for comments on earlier versions of this article. Any errors remain our own. We would further like to thank Meg Laing and Roger Lass for granting access to a pre-published version of the LAEME corpus. Parts of this article were published before in de Haas (2011).

References

AllenCynthia, L. Cynthia, L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2012. From modal particle to interrogative marker: A study of German denn. In Brugé, Laura, Cardinaletti, Anna, Giusti, Giuliana, Munaro, Nicola & Poletto, Cecilia (eds.), Functional heads, 13–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. Linguistic Review 28, 449–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benskin, Michael. 2011. Present indicative plural concord in Brittonic and Early English. Transactions of the Philological Society 109, 158–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20 (2), 197–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Karl. 1962. Die englische Sprache: Ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Cole, Marcelle. 2009. What is the Northern Subject Rule? The resilience of a medieval constraint in Tyneside English. In Guzmán González, Trinidad & Fernández-Corugedo, S. G. (eds.), Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval Language and Literature (SELIM) 15, 91–114.Google Scholar
Cole, Marcelle. 2012a. The Old English origins of the Northern Subject Rule: Evidence from the Lindisfarne gloss to the Gospels of John and Mark. In Stenroos, Merja, Mäkinen, Martti & Særheim, Inge (eds.), Language contact and development around the North Sea, 141–68. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Marcelle. 2012b. Verbal morphology in the Old Northumbrian glosses to the Lindisfarne Gospels. PhD dissertation, University of Seville.Google Scholar
Dobson, E. J. (ed.). 1972. The English text of the Ancrene Riwle edited from BM Cotton MS. Cleopatra C VI, EETS OS 267. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey, Elizabeth & Tagliamonte, Sali. 1999. Another piece for the verbal -s story: Evidence from Devon in southwest England. Language Variation and Change 11, 87–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Nynke K. de. 2011. Morphosyntactic variation in Northern English: The Northern Subject Rule, its origins and early history. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht: LOT. Available at www.lotpublications.nl.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2000. Adjuncts and the syntax of subjects in Old and Middle English. In Pintzuk et al., 109–31.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. 2004. North Northumbrian and South Northumbrian: A geographical statement? In Dossena, Marina & Lass, Roger (eds.), Methods and data in English historical dialectology, 241–57. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ingham, Richard P. & Grohmann, Kleanthes K.. 2008. On the post-finite misagreement phenomenon in Late Middle English. In Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina & Dury, Richard (eds.), English historical linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006, vol. I: Syntax and morphology, 125–40. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, M. R. 1912. Descriptive catalogue of the manuscripts in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for Mixed-Effects Variable Rule Analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (1), 359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. 2014. Rbrul version 2.22. 21 March 2014. Retrieved from www.danielezrajohnson.comGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 1999. Sentential negation and word order in Old English. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Tottie, Gunnel & van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Negation in the history of English, 147–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 2000. Jespersen's cycle revisited: Formal properties of grammaticalization. In Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George & Warner, Anthony (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, 51–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 2011. Secondary negation and information structure organization in the history of English. In Ingham, Richard & Larrivee, Pierre (eds.), The evolution of negation: Beyond the Jespersen cycle, 77–114. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Los, Bettelou. 2006. Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax in Old and Middle English. In van Kemenade, Ans & Bettelou, Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 224–48. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van, Milicev, Tanja & Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. The balance between discourse and syntax in Old English. In Dossena, Marina & Gotti, Maurizio (eds.), Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 3–22. Amsterdam and Phildelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Milicev, Tanja. 2012. Syntax and discourse in Old English and Middle English word order. In Jonas, Dianne & Anderson, Stephen (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes: Proceedings of DIGS VIII. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Taylor, Ann. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: dialect variation and language contact. In Kemenade, Ans van & Vincent, Nigel (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
LAEME: Laing, Margaret, & Lass, Roger. 2008–. A linguistic atlas of early Middle English 1150–1325. Version 1.1. Online at www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laeme1/laeme1.html. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
LALME: McIntosh, Angus, Samuels, M.L., Benskin, Michael, with Laing, Margaret & Williamson, Keith (eds.). 1986. A linguistic atlas of late mediaeval English. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Blake, Norman F. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476, 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCafferty, Kevin. 2004. ‘(T)hunder storms is verry dangese in this countrey they come in less than a minnits notice.’: The Northern Subject Rule in Southern Irish English. English World-Wide: A Journal of Varieties of English 25 (1), 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, Angus. 1983. Present indicative plural forms in the later Middle English of the North Midlands. In Grey, Douglas & Stanley, E.G. (eds.), Middle English studies presented to Norman Davis in honour of his seventieth birthday, 235–44. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce 1985. Old English syntax, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Michael. 1994. The evolution of verb concord in Scots. In Fenton, Alexander & MacDonald, Donald (eds.), Studies in Scots and Gaelic, 81–95. Edinburgh: Canongate Academic.Google Scholar
Mossé, Fernand. 1952. A handbook of Middle English, trans. Walker, James. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax, part I: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Parkes, M. B. 1983. On the presumed date and possible origin of the manuscript of the ‘Ormulum’: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Junius 1. In Stanley, E. G. & Gray, D. (eds.), Five hundred years of words and sounds: A festschrift for Eric Dobson, 115–27. Cambridge: Brewer.Google Scholar
Pickering, O. S. 1992. Newly discovered lyrics from later 13th century Cheshire. Review of English Studies NS 43, 157–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, Lukas. 2005a. Variable grammars: Verbal agreement in northern dialects of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, Lukas. 2005b. ‘Some do and some doesn't’: Verbal concord variation in the north of the British Isles. In Kortmann, Bernd, Herrmann, Tanja, Pietsch, Lukas & Wagner, Susanne, A comparative grammar of English dialects: Agreement, gender, relative clauses, 125–209. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1993. The distribution and syntax of Old English adverbs. GAGL (Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik) 36, 152–67.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George & Warner, Anthony (eds.). 2000. Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
PPCME2: Kroch, Anthony & Taylor, Ann. 2000. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2. University of Pennsylvania, Dept of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Robson, John (ed.). 1842. The Anturs of Arther at the Tarnewathelan. Three early English metrical romances, 1–26. London: Nichols.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1991. Heads, projections, and category determination. In Bouchard, D. & Leffel, K. (eds.), Views on phrase structure, 97–112. Kluwer: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeat, Walter W. (ed.). 1871, The gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in The gospel according to Saint Matthew and according to Saint Mark. 1970. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Smithers, G. V. 1987. Havelok. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tortora, Christina & den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. Subject agreement variation: Support for the configurational approach. Lingua 120 (5), 1089–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trips, Carola & Fuß, Eric. 2011. The Northern Subject Rule: A synchronic puzzle with a diachronic solution. MS, University of Mannheim and Leipzig University.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Th. 1970. An historical syntax of the English language, vol. I. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N.. 1997. Hoi toide on the outer banks: The story of the Ocracoke brogue. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles D. 2002. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
YCOE: Taylor, Ann, Warner, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan & Beths, Frank. 2003. The York–Toronto–Helsinki parsed corpus of Old English. York, UK: Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Available through the Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar