Cover not available
Part of
Word Order Change in Acquisition and Language Contact: Essays in honour of Ans van Kemenade
Edited by Bettelou Los and Pieter de Haan
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 243] 2017
► pp. 57–77

Chapter 4
Conditional inversion and types of parametric change

| University of Cambridge | Stellenbosch University
| University of Cambridge
We document a case of change from a mesoparameter to a microparameter to a nanoparameter involving Conditional Inversion (CI) in English. What has changed since Old English is the range of elements affected by T-to-C movement, and how it relates to other forms of head-movement into the C-field. In Old English, CI was part of the verb-second (V2) system. English lost V2 in the 15th century, but “residual V2”, including CI, survived. In the Early Modern period, movement of lexical verbs to T was lost; from this period on, only auxiliaries undergo CI, again in line with interrogative inversion. CI applied to all auxiliaries, until the mid-19th century. In contemporary English, CI is restricted to had, should and were.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.CI in Contemporary English
  • 2. Pre-20th-century Modern English
  • 3.Early Modern English
  • 4.Old and Middle English
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.243.04rob
References (62)
References
Baker, Mark. 2008. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 132], Theresa Biberauer (ed.), 351–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Belder, Marijke & van Craenenbroek, Jeroen. 2014. How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4): 625–655.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1994. ARCHER: A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. <[URL]> (25 April 2014).
Biberauer, Theresa. 2012. One peculiarity leads to another: On Afrikaans’ unique embedded Wh-V2. Paper presented at the 14th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference, Lisbon.
Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian. 2008. Cascading parameter changes: Internally driven change in Middle and Early Modern English. In Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 113], Thórhallur Eythórsson (ed.), 79–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa& Roberts, Ian. 2010. Subjects, tense and verb-movement. In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 263–303. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2012. Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6: 209–236.Google Scholar
. 2015. Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7: 1-31.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, Brownyn & Halpert, Claire 2017. In an imperfect world: Deriving the typology of counterfactual marking. In Modality Across Syntactic Categories, Ana Arregui, María Luisa Rivero & Andres Salanova (eds), 157–178. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Breitbarth, Anne. 2015. The development of conditional should in English. In Language Change at the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Chiara Gianollo, Agnes Jäger & Doris Penka (eds), 293–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Butler, Jonny. 2004. Phase Structure, Phrase Structure and Quantification. PhD dissertation, York University.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Margaret. 1982. Martin Chuzzlewit, Charles Dickens, with an Introduction and Notes by Margaret Caldwell. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 4. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1985. The origins of periphrastic do . In Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 41], Roger Eaton, Olga Fischer, Willem Koopman & Frederike van der Leek (eds), 45–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1993. Some recent changes in the English verb. In English Diachronic Syntax, Maurizio Gotti (ed.), 15–33. Milan: Guerini.Google Scholar
. 1998. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Suzanne Romaine (ed.), 92–329. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Duffield, Nigel. 2007. Aspects of Vietnamese clause structure: Separating tense from assertion. Linguistics 45: 765–814.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. On polarity emphasis, assertion and mood in Vietnamese and English. Lingua 137: 248–270.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem & William van der Wurff. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2000. Negative … Concord? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 457–523.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2012. On the Grammar of Optative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 1999. Features, Categories and the Syntax of A-Positions. Synchronic and Diachronic Variation in the Germanic Languages. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric & Ihsahne, Tabea. 2012. Adverb placement and the loss of V-to-I movement in the history of English. Paper presented at the 14th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference, Lisbon.
Han, Chung-hye & Kroch, Anthony. 2000. The rise of do-support in English: Implications for clause structure. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, Masako Horitani (ed.), 311–325. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2006. Embedded root phenomena. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 174–220. Oxford: Blackwell.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2013. The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish. Lingua 128: 31–50.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Verb second. In Syntax, Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Vol. 1 [Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 42/1], Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 342–383. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 69–96.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2016. The Syntax of Yes and No. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Content clauses and reported speech. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey Pullum (eds), 947–1030. Cambridge: CUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Jimenez-Fernandez, Ángel & Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2014. A feature-inheritance approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Ms, University of Seville and MIT.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurtu, Bhadriraju. 2006. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989a. Function and grammar in the history of English periphrastic do . In Language Variation and Change [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 52], Ralph Fasold & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 132–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989b. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of languagec Change. Language Variation and Change 1(3): 199–244.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2006. Questions and questioning in a local English. Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture, Raffaella Zanuttini, Héctor Campos, Elena Herburger & Paul Portner (eds), 87–126. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
McCready, Eric. 2008. What man does. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(6): 671–724.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita, Huddleston, Rodney & Collins, Peter. 2002. The clause: Adjuncts. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey Pullum (eds), 663–784. Cambridge: CUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munaro, Nicola. 2010. Toward a hierarchy of clause types. In Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds), 125–162. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1989. The Earliness Principle. Ms, MIT. <[URL]> (25 April 2014)
Pintzuk, Susan. 1991. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. III: Early Modern English 1476–1776, Roger Lass (ed.), 187–331. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. Varieties of infl: tense, location and person . In Alternatives to Cartography, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), 153–201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The composition of infl. An exploration of tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32(4): 1331–1386.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar. A Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Roberts, Ian. 1989. Complex inversion in French. Probus 1: 1–30.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 1996. Remarks on the Old English C-system and the diachrony of V2. In Language Change and Generative Grammar [Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 7], Ellen Brandner & Gisela Ferraresi (eds), 154–164. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Verb movement and markedness. In Language Creation and Language Change, Michel deGraff (ed.), 287–328. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement. Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalisation. Cambridge: CUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodoricus. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Vols 1–3. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2014. Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford: OUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1983. Review of Lightoot (1979). Journal of Linguistics 19: 187–209.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The structure of parametric change, and V-movement in the history of English. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 380–393. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Haegeman, Liliane & Manuela Schönenberger
2023. The External Syntax of Conditional Clauses. In Conditionals [Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition, ], ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Language Change, Variation, and Universals, DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Recapitulation and prospects. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 274 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Constructions. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Constructional economy and analogy. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 242 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Argument structure. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Changes outside of the CCore. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Overview. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. A′ constructions. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 166 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Universals. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Grammatical functions. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Learning, complexity, and competition. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 68 ff. DOI logo
Culicover, Peter W.
2021. Constructional change in Germanic. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Martins, Ana Maria
2019. Chapter 1. Against V2 as a general property of Old Romance languages. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 15 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, 15], ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Preface. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Copyright Page. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. List of Abbreviations. In Language Change, Variation, and Universals, ► pp. xv ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.