Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:11:40.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relic Syntax In Middle English and Medieval Spanish: Parameter Interaction in Language Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Ian Mackenzie and
Wlm van der Wurff
Ian Mackenzie*
Affiliation:
Newcastle University
Wlm van der Wurff*
Affiliation:
Newcastle University
*
Mackenzie, School of Modem Languages, Newcastle University [ian.mackenzie@ncl.ac.uk]
van der Wurff, School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics Newcastle University [w.a.m.van-der-wurff@ncl.ac.uk]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article looks at a hitherto unnoticed series of parallels between Middle English (ME) and Medieval Spanish (MS). In the first place, while both appear to have been essentially VO languages, they allow identical classes of object to move leftward over the verb. In ME, movement is normally to a position between the auxiliary and the main verb, whereas in MS the movement is normally to the left of the auxiliary, if one is present. Second, both languages allowed the fronting of nonfinite verb forms. We argue that the parallels in question are the result of analogous processes of reanalysis operating in the two languages at earlier periods in their history. Both MS and ME descend from languages that tended toward O-V(-Aux) order. According to our analysis, when the structural mechanism giving rise to the latter order was lost, certain instances of OV ordering were nevertheless able to survive in reanalyzed form. The ‘low’ pattern of reanalysis in ME versus the ‘high’ pattern observable in MS can then be attributed to the blocking effect of the subject in Spec-TP in English and its absence in the Spanish case (where the subject is either null or not in spec-TP). As regards nonfinite fronting, this too can be regarded as a relic of the older word order. For MS we posit an analogous reanalysis to that observed for relic OV ordering, whereas for ME the evidence points toward an undisturbed continuation of the earlier V-Aux pattern. This difference between MS and ME can again be attributed to the absence versus presence of a spec-TP subject.

Keywords

Middle EnglishMedieval Spanishword orderdiachronicsyntaxparameternull subject

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 88 , Issue 4 , December 2012, pp. 846 - 876
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The research on which this article is based was made possible by a grant from the Centre for Research in Linguistics and Language Sciences at Newcastle University. Parts of the article were presented at the 7th Symposium on the History of English Syntax, Nijmegen, 6-7 June 2009, and the Linguistics Association of Great Britain’s annual conference, Edinburgh, 6-9 September 2009. In addition to members of the audience at those gatherings, we are grateful to Michelle Sheehan and Richard Waltereit for helpful comments on a draft version of the article. We would also like to thank Greg Carlson and three anonymous Language referees, whose detailed and perceptive comments led to a substantially revised and much improved final version. All of the usual disclaimers apply.

References

Adams, James N. 1976. A typological approach to Latin word order. Indogermanische Forschungen 81. 70–100.Google Scholar
Aldridge, Edith. 2006. VP-intemal quantification in Old Chinese. Chinese linguistics in Budapest, ed. by Djamouri, Redouane and Sybesma, Rint, 1–15. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Centre de Recherches Linguistiques sur l’Asie Orientale.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Alexis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C., Aranovich, Roberto; and Golluscio, Lucía A.. 2005. Two types of syntactic noun incorporation: Noun incorporation in Mapudungun and its typological implications. Language 81. 138–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 1995. Null subjects. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 2009. Two kinds of subject. Studia Linguistica 63.1.2–58.10.1111/j.1467-9582.2008.01153.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batllorì, Montse. 1992. Preliminary remarks on Old Spanish auxiliaries: Haber, ser, and estar. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 87–112.Google Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte L. M. 1995. The emergence and development of SVO patterning in Latin and French: Diachronic andpsycholinguistic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte L. M. 2006. ‘Synthetic’ vs. ‘analytic’ in Romance: The importance of varieties. Historical Romance linguistics: Retrospective and perspectives, ed. by Gess, Randall Scott and Arteaga, Deborah L., 287–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.274.18bauCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte L. M. 2009. Word order. New perspectives on historical Latin syntax, vol 1: Syntax of the sentence, ed. by Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, 242–316. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2006. A detailed map of the left periphery in medieval Romance. Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense, and clausal architecture, ed. by Zanuttini, Raffaella, Campos, Hector, and Herburger, Elena, 53–86. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders; and Roberts, Ian. 2008. Structure and linearization in disharmonic word orders. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 26. 96–104.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, and Roberts, Ian. 2005. Changing EPP parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change. English Language and Linguistics 9.1.5-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, and Roberts, Ian. 2008. Cascading parameter changes: Internally-driven change in Middle and Early Modem English. Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers, ed. by Eythórsson, Thórhallur, 79–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, and Roberts, Ian. 2010. Subjects, Tense and verb-movement. Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory, ed. by Holmberg, Anders, Roberts, Ian, Sheehan, Michelle, and Biberauer, Theresa, 263–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 2006. La sintaxis de las Glosas Emilianenses en una perspectiva tipológica. Actas del VI Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española (Madrid, Septiembre 2003), vol. 1, ed. by de Bustos, José Jesús and Girón, José Luis, 529–44. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol 3: Structures and beyond, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, 104–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. Foundational issues in linguistic theory, ed. by Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P., and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2002. Corpus del Español (100 million words, 1200s-1900s). Online: http://www.corpusdelespanol.org.Google Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof. 2001. From OV to VO in Swedish. Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, ed. by Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George, and Warner, Anthony, 253–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Devine, Andrew M., and Stephens, Laurence D.. 2006. Latin word order: Structured meaning and information. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15.2.369–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E. Kiss, Katalin. 2010. An adjunction analysis of quantifiers and adverbiais in the Hungarian sentence. Lingua 120. 506–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elenbaas, Marion, and Kemenade, Ans van. 2012. Verb particles and OV/VO in the history of English. Studia Linguistica, to appear.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Kemenade, Ans van, Koopman, Willem; and van, Wim Wurff, der. 2000. The syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fontana, Josep M. 1993. Phrase structure and the syntax of clitics in the history of Spanish. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Foster, Tony, and van, Wim Wurff, der. 1995. The survival of object-verb order in late Middle English: Some data. Neophilologus 79. 309–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifford, D. J., and Hodcroft, F. W.. 1966. Textos lingüísticos del medievo español. Oxford: Dolphin.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2009. Compounding in distributed morphology. The Oxford handbook of compounding, ed. by Lieber, Rochelle and Stekauer, Pavol, 129–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1983. The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 445–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg. 2001. Word order change in Icelandic: From OV to VO. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg. 2008. Types of DPs in OV order. Studia Linguistica 63. 261–86.Google Scholar
Initiative, Humanities Text. 2006. Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse. Online: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/index.html.Google Scholar
Hurtado, Alfredo. 1985. The unagreement hypothesis. Selected papers from the 13th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by King, Larry and Maley, Catherine, 187–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2000. Negation and OV order in Late Middle English. Journal of Linguistics 36. 13–38.10.1017/S0022226799007963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2002. Negated subjects and objects in 15th-century nonliterary English. Language Variation and Change 14. 291–322.10.1017/S095439450214302XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koll, Hans-Georg. 1965. Zur Stellung des Verbs im spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Latein. Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 2. 241–72.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. Chicago Linguistic Society (The parasession on variation in linguistic theory) 30.2.180–201.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, and Taylor, Ann. 2000a. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English. 2nd edn. Online: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-3/.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, and Taylor, Ann. 2000b. Verb-complement order in Middle English. Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, ed. by Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George, and Warner, Anthony, 132–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2007. EPP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38.3.485–523.10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2011. Syntactic and morphosyntactic typology and change. The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, vol 1: Structures, ed. by Maiden, Martin, Smith, John Charles, and Ledgeway, Adam, 382–471. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lema, José, and Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1991. Types of verbal movement in Old Spanish: Modals, futures, and perfects. Probus 3. 237–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel, and Vidal, Victoria Escandell. 2010. Las anteposiciones inductoras de foco de polaridad. La renovación de la palabra en el bicentenario de la Argentina: Los colores de la mirada lingüística, ed. by Castel, Victor M. and Cubo, Liliana Severino, de, 733–43. Mendoza: Editorial FFyL, UNCuyo.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2009. IE, Germanie: English. The Oxford handbook of compounding, ed. by Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol, 357–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Linde, Paul. 1923. Die Stellung des Verbs in der lateinischen Prosa. Glotta 12. 153–78.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1990. Inversion in embedded clauses in Modem Icelandic. Modern Icelandic syntax, ed. by Maling, Joan and Zaenen, Annie, 71–91. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mensching, Guido. 2009. Old Romance word order: A comparative minimalist analysis. Paper given at the Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference (DIGS) XI, University of Campinas, Brazil, 22-24 July 2009.Google Scholar
Metzeltin, Michael. 1987. Lateinische versus romanische Satzgliedemng? Latein und Romanisch, ed. by Dahmen, Wolfgang, Holtus, Günter, Kramer, Johannes, and Metzeltin, Michael, 246–69. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Moerenhout, Mike, and van, Wim Wurff, der. 2000. Remnants of the old order: OV in the Paston letters. English Studies 81. 513–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moerenhout, Mike, and van, Wim Wurff, der. 2005. Object-verb order in early sixteenth- century English prose: An exploratory study. English Language and Linguistics 9.83- 114.10.1017/S1360674305001553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohkado, Masayuki. 2010. On stylistic fronting in Middle English prose. Language change and variation from Old English to Late Modern English, ed. by Kytö, Merja, Seahill, John, and Tanabe, Harumi, 104–16. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1990. Latin syntax and semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1991. Evidence for SVO in Latin? Latin and the Romance languages in the early Middle Ages, ed. by Wright, Roger, 69–82. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1998. Postverbal complements in Old English. Historical linguistics 1995, vol. 2: Germanic linguistics, ed. by Hogg, Richard M. and Bergen, Linda van, 233–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 2005. Arguments against a universal base: Evidence from Old English. English Language and Linguistics 9.1.115–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan, and Haeberli, Eric. 2008. Structural variation in Old English root clauses. Language Variation and Change 8. 1–141.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan, and Taylor, Ann. 2006. The loss of OV order in the history of English. The handbook of the history of English, ed. by Los, Bettelou and Kemenade, Ans van, 249–78. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1995. The loss of verb second in English and French. Clause structure and language change, ed. by Battye, Adrian and Roberts, Ian, 200–226. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polo, Chiara. 2005. Latin word order in generative perspective: An explanatory proposal within the sentence domain. Universal grammar in the reconstruction of ancient languages, ed. by Kiss, Katalin É., 373–428. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110902228.373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Geoffrey. 2006. Interpolation and the left periphery in Old Spanish. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 13. 188–216.Google Scholar
Pountain, Christopher. 2001. A history of the Spanish language through texts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2002. Edging quantifiers: On QP-fronting in Western Romance. Romance languages and linguistic theory 2000, ed. by Beyssade, Claire, Bok-Bennema, Reineke, Drijkoningen, Frank, and Monachesi, Paola, 253–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2009. Analysing English sentences: A minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remberger, Eva-María. 2010. Left-peripheral interactions in Sardinian. Lingua 120.3.55581.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc, and Biberauer, Theresa. 2005. Explaining Expl. The function of function words and functional categories, ed. by Dikken, Marcel den and Tortora, Cristina, 115–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa. 1978. Topicalization and WH-movement in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 513–17.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa. 1993. Long head movement versus V2, and null subjects in Old Romance. Lingua 89. 217–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa. 2008. Oblique subjects and person restrictions in Spanish: A morphological approach. Agreement restrictions, ed. by D’Alessandro, Roberta, Fischer, Susann, and Hrafnbjargarson, Gunnar Hrafn, 215–50. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. WH-movement: Moving on, ed. by Cheng, Lisa and Corver, Norbert, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1995. Object movement and verb movement in Early Modem English. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. by Haider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan, and Vikner, Sten, 269–84. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1997. Directionality and word order change in the history of English. Parameters of syntactic change, ed. by Kemenade, Ans van and Vincent, Nigel, 397–426. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic. Language 56. 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvi, Giampaolo. 2000. La formazione del sistema V2 delle lingue romanze antiche. Lingua e stile 35.4.665–92.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1993. Syntactic weight vs. information structure and word order variation in Polish. Journal of Linguistics 29.2.233–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sundquist, John D. 2006. Syntactic variation in the history of Norwegian and the decline of XV word order. Diachronica 23. 105–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2000. Quantifier movement in Icelandic. The derivation of VO and OV, ed. by Svenonius, Peter, 255–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. Ways of scope taking, ed. by Szabolcsi, Anna, 109–54. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann, and Pintzuk, Susan. 2009. Some preliminary results on the correlation between focus and object position in Old English. Paper given at the 7th Symposium on the History of English Syntax (SHES7), Nijmegen, 6-7 June 2009.Google Scholar
Trips, Carola. 2002. From OVto VO in Early Middle English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van der Wurff, Wim. 1997. OV-volgorde in vijftiende-eeuws Engels proza. Taal in tijd en ruimte, ed. by Santen, Ariane van and van, Marijke Wal, der, 73–84. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek.Google Scholar
van der Wurff, Wim. 1999. Objects and verbs in modem Icelandic and fifteenth-century English: A word order parallel and its causes. Lingua 109. 237–65.10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00026-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der WuRFF, Wim, and Foster, Tony. 1997. From syntax to discourse: The function of object-verb order in Late Middle English. Studies in Middle English linguistics, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 135–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns: Person, self, and interpretability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Roger. 1999. Periodization and how to avoid it. Essays in Hispanic linguistics dedicated to Paul M. Lloyd, ed. by Blake, Robert J., Ranson, Diana L., and Wright, Roger, 25–41. Newark: Juan de la Cuesta.Google Scholar