Cover not available
Part of
Particles in German, English, and Beyond
Edited by Remus Gergel, Ingo Reich and Augustin Speyer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 224] 2022
► pp. 147–176

Chapter 6
Syntactic change and pragmatic maintenance

The discourse particle then over the history of English

| Radboud University Nijmegen
This chapter presents a corpus-based study of the history of then as a discourse marker in English. It will be shown that the pragmatic use of then and its status as a discourse particle was more or less stable throughout the history of English, even though its syntax changed profoundly.
The precursor of then in Old English occurs on a large scale in a fixed position in questions, imperatives and conditional correlatives, and is presuppositional in the sense that it reflects a speaker’s response to the context, such as surprise or disapproval in questions, reinforcement or downtoning of the directive in imperatives.
From early Middle English onward, the pragmatic use of then in questions and imperatives occurs in available alternative positions in the clause: initially (in yes/no questions and imperatives) and final (in questions). The older particle position became restricted to questions. The finally position was extended to declarative SVO clauses.
The division of labour between particle use and temporal adverb use will be shown to interact, over the late Middle English and early Modern periods, with major syntactic changes that affected each of the clause types in different ways: the loss of V2, the auxiliation of the modals and the rise of do-support, and the loss of V to T movement. Through these developments, the pragmatic use of then has, if anything, expanded. This suggests that its robust discourse function was a powerful drive for maintenance under syntactic change.
Article outline
  • 1.Background and aims
    • 1.1Theoretical background and major syntactic developments in the history of English
  • 2.Discourse particle then in Old English
    • 2.1The syntax of particles
    • 2.2Preposed adverbial and conditional clauses
    • 2.3Interim conclusion
  • 3.The Middle English and later periods
    • 3.1The data in ME, eME and LME
    • 3.2From Middle English to late Modern English
      • 3.2.1Alternative positions for then from Middle English onward
        • 3.2.1.1Questions
        • 3.2.1.2Imperatives
        • 3.2.1.3Subject-initial clauses
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.224.06but
References (56)
References
Corpora
Kytö, Merja & Jonathan Culpeper . 2006. A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. 2006. Compiled under the supervision of Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University).Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Anne Taylor . 2000. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English. [URL]
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs . 2006. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English. [URL]
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani . 2016. The Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English. [URL]
Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Ann Taylor, Susan Pintzuk, Anthony Warner . 2006. Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC), Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Frank Beths . 2003. The York Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose. University of York: Department of Language and Linguistic Science.Google Scholar
Secondary literature
Abraham, Werner. 1991. The grammaticization of the German modal particles. In Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II: Types of grammatical markers, Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), 331–380. [Typological Studies in Language 19:2]. Amsterdam/Philadlephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2012. From modal particle to interrogative marker: a study of German denn. In Functional heads. The cartography of syntactic structures (vol.7.), Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro & Cecilia Poletto (eds.), 13–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Hans-Georg Obenauer . 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28, 449–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Volker Struckmeier . 2017. The status quo of research on discourse particles in syntax and semantics. In Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds.), 1–14. [Linguistische Arbeiten 564]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa & Ian Roberts . 2010. Subjects, Tense and verb-movement. In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), 263–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. The evolution of pragmatic markers in English: Pathways of change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Ian Roberts . 2002. Clause structure and X-second. In Functional structure in DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 1. Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), 123–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizenzierung in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the formal nature of the Westgermania, Werner Abraham (ed.), 47–131. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellegard, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. [Gothenburg Studies in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils E. 1986. More about the textual functions of the Old English adverbial þa. Linguistics across historical and geographical bounderies: In honour of Jacek Fisiak on the occassion of his fiftieth birthday, Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek (eds.), 301–309. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. II, Norman Blake (ed.), 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, , Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wurff . 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics 1: 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2001. The syntax of mood particles in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica XXII. 301–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Patrick. 2016. Information structure and discourse particles. In The Oxford handbook of information structure, Caroline Féry, & Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), 336–358. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2000. Adjuncts and the syntax of subjects in Old and Middle English. In Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas & Anthony Warner (eds.), 109–131. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Observations on the Loss of Verb Second in the History of English’. In Studies in Comparative Syntax, Jan-Wouter Zwart and Werner Abraham (eds.), 245–72. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric & Tabea Ihsane . 2016. Revisiting the loss of verb movement in the history of English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34, 497–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hye. 2000. The evolution of do-support in English imperatives. In Diachronic syntax: Models and Mechanisms, eds. Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas, & Anthony Warner, 275–295. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: the functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 6303–6323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In English Historical Linguistics 2010. Selected Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 16), Pécs, 23–27 August 2010, Irén Hegedűs and Alexandra Fodor (eds.), 153–175. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 2011. Secondary negation and Information Structure organization in the History of English. In The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle, Pierre Larrivee & Richard Ingham (eds.), 77–114. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Rethinking the loss of V2. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Terttu Nevalainen (eds.), 1182–1199. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Bettelou Los . 2006. Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax in Old and Middle English’. In The Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade and Bettelou Los (eds.), 224–248. London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Tanja Milicev . 2012. Syntax and discourse in Old and Middle English word order. In Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, Dianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds.), 239–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Marit Westergaard . 2012. Syntax and Information Structure: Verb Second variation in Middle English. In Information Structure and Syntactic Change, Anneli Meurmann-Solin, Bettelou Los & Maria José Lopez-Couso (eds.), 87–118. [Oxford Studies in the History of English 1]. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Meta Links . 2020. Discourse particles in early English: Clause structure, pragmatics and discourse management. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komen, Erwin R. 2013. CorpusStudio. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55, 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. [Topics in English Linguistics 64]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 23]. New York and London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Links, Meta, Ans van Kemenade, & Stefan Grondelaers . 2017. Correlatives in earlier English: change and continuity in the expression of interclausal dependencies. Language Variation and Change, 27.3. 365–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase Structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3. 21–58.Google Scholar
. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. [Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker. 2014. Ja doch wohl C? Modal particles as C-related elements. Studia Linguistica 68(1). 16–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann & Susan Pintzuk . 2012. Rethinking the OV/VO alternation in Old English: The effect of complexity, grammatical weight, and information status. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, Elizabeth Traugott & Terttu Nevalainen (eds.). Oxford Handbooks Online.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17:1, 26–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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.), 380–394. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Variation and the interpretation of change in periphrastic do. In The Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), 45–67. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 2013. Participant continuity and narrative structure: Defining discourse marker functions in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica 34. 209–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Connective or “disconnective” discourse marker? Old English þa, multifunctionality and narrative structuring. In Connectives in Synchrony and Diachrony in European Languages, Anneli Meurman-Solin & Ursula Lenker (eds.). [Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, Volume] Helsinki, Varieng. [URL]
Wouden, Ton van der & Ad Foolen . 2015. Dutch particles in the right periphery. In Final Particles, Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow, Margje Post (eds.), 221–247. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan Wouter. 2011. The Syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Puhl, Maike & Remus Gergel
2022. Chapter 7. Final though. In Particles in German, English, and Beyond [Studies in Language Companion Series, 224], ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.