Truswell, Robert

Edinburgh Research Explorer

     Edinburgh Research Explorer                                      The source of English headed wh-relative clausesCitation for published version:Truswell, R 2015, 'The source of English headed wh-relative clauses' Paper presented at LAGB annualmeeting, London, United Kingdom, 15/09/15 - 18/09/15, .Link:Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research ExplorerDocument Version:Peer reviewed versionGeneral rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.Take down policyThe University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorercontent complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright pleasecontact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately andinvestigate your claim.Download date: 05. Apr. 2019The source of English headed wh-relative clausesNik Gisborne and Rob Truswelln.gisborne@ed.ac.uk, rob.truswell@ed.ac.ukLAGB, 16/9/151 / 25IntroductionI English has had two different series of forms in [Spec,CP] ofheaded relatives over the course of its history: Old Englishinflected demonstratives and Middle/Modern Englishwh-phrases.I This is despite the fact that filled [Spec,CP]s arecrosslinguistically quite rare in headed relatives.I We present an account of emergence of headed wh-relatives inEnglish over c.1000–1500AD.I This account differs from earlier work in tracking thediachronies of individual lexical items rather than therealization of relativization strategies.I We show that our approach has significant advantages overaccounts based on grammatical function, and relate this toconceptions of syntactic change within lexicalist theories ofsyntax.2 / 25Section 1Preliminaries3 / 25Accessibility HierarchySU > DO > IO > OBL > GEN > OCOMP(Keenan & Comrie 1977:66)I Romaine (1982, 1984): English headed wh-relatives wereinitially attested low on the AH, and spread gradually upwards.I Headed wh-relatives with adverbial and PP gaps also predatedexamples with argument gaps.● ●●● ●1100 1200 1300 1400 1500020406080100Year% Wh● AdvPPObjSubj4 / 25Early English headed wh-relatives(1) &andþurhthroughungewæderabad.weather[forforwhanwhicheorþwestmascropswurdonwereswiþebadlyamyrde]damaged“and because of bad weather, as a result of which cropswere badly damaged”(Peterborough Chronicle, 1104, Dekeyser 1986: 101)(2) minmyhelpehelpysisryZtfulrightfulofofourourLord,lordþethewhichwhichmakeþmakessaufsafeþetheryZtfulrightfulofofheret.heart“My salvation is rightfully from our Lord, who makes safethe rightful of heart.”(Earliest English Prose Psalter, c.1350, CMEARLPS,7.241)5 / 25Old English relativization strategiesI OE could relativize PPs and adverbials (as well as arguments)using demonstrative phrases (3a).I OE also had a relative complementizer þe, for relativizingargument NPs (3b).I The loss of inflected demonstratives in late OE/early ME leftEnglish without a strategy for relativizing low-accessibilitypositions.(3) a. heheisisureourliflife[oninþamDEMwewelybbaðlive&andstyriaðmove]“He is our life, in whom we live and move”b. icI[ðethattotoeowyousprece]speak“I, that speaks to you” (both Ælfric homilies, c.990)6 / 25Renouvellement formelI This suggests that headed wh-relatives emerged as areplacement for demonstrative relatives.I As if English has a set of functional roles, and if the formalmeans to express those roles disappears, a new form must befound.“distinct [relativization] strategies in [a complementary]relationship are no more different than complementarilydistributed allophones. And just as different allophones ofa particular phoneme are phonetically similar to eachother, different [relativization] strategies in a givenlanguage must be syntactically similar.”(Maxwell 1982:142–3; see also Romaine 1984)7 / 25ProblemsI Data like the above make such notions attractive, but they aretroubling for modern syntactic theory, which does not reasonin terms of a stable set of “strategies”.I Most theories today work with a large set of lexical items anda few schemas for combining them. There is no easy way toguarantee the existence of e.g. “Relative Clauses with PP gaps”within such a conception of grammar, and no obvious reasonto worry if a given grammar does not generate such structures.I Two empirical problems ground this conceptual worry.1. The chronology of the emergence of types of wh-relative doesnot match the chronology of the disappearance of types ofdemonstrative relative.2. English is typologically in a minority in having suchrelativization strategies at all. Among languages withequivalents of headed wh-relatives, not all had an antecedentstage with demonstrative relatives.8 / 25Section 2Data9 / 25Functional overlapI Probably the last type of demonstrative relative to disappearwas with there.(4) every place [there as inquesyscyon (= inquisition) wasmade] (cmgregor,201.1651)I Nevertheless, functionally equivalent headed wh-relatives withwhere emerged 250 years earlier.(5) þetheþyestredarkstedesplaces[huerwherehitheyzelleþsellharetheircloþcloth]“the dark places where they sell their cloth”(cmayenbi,45.751)10 / 25Functional overlap020406080100PeriodFrequency (%)950-1000 1050-1100 1150-1250 1350-1420 1500-1570 1640-1710DemWhFigure 1: Demonstrative and wh-relatives with locative gaps over time11 / 25DiscontinuitiesI Demonstrative relatives with argument NP gaps disappearedduring the transition to ME.(6) heheisisiblescedblessed[þethatþethatherherecumetcomesonindrihteneslord’snome].name“he that comes here in the lord’s name is blessed”(cmlambx1,5.30)I But headed wh-relatives with argument NP gaps didn’t emergeuntil c.200 years later.(7) a very liZt, [which liZtneth ech man that cometh into this world](cmntest,I,1.19)12 / 25Discontinuities020406080100PeriodFrequency (%)950-1000 1050-1100 1150-1250 1350-1420 1500-1570 1640-1710DemWhFigure 2: Demonstrative and wh-relatives with argument gaps over time13 / 25DiscussionI Neither of these patterns conform to the replacement of oneitem with another in a given function.I Given the stable presence of headed relatives with þe/thatthroughout the written history of English, even the pattern inFig. 2 is an example of functional overlap: English had awell-established strategy for forming relatives with argumentgaps, but still innovated another way to do the same thing.I Many varieties of headed wh-relative evolved even thoughEnglish already had a way to lexicalize that function.I In fact, there is no common pattern of association ofgrammatical functions with forms among languages whichdevelop headed wh-relatives, either contemporaneously or atan antecedent stage.14 / 25Recurring crosslinguistic patternsI The English data belong within a larger typological context.I Headed relatives with interrogative relativizers arecrosslinguistically vanishingly rare, but are common amongIndo-European languages.IE OtherWh-RC 19 (47.5%) 3 (2.3%)Other 21 (52.5%) 129 (97.7%)Table 1: Headed wh-relatives in 172 languages (based on De Vries 2002)I These are not inherited from Proto-Indo-European, which onlyhad adjoined relatives (Clackson 2007), so they have emergedrepeatedly in IE.I Most instances of this diachronic progression show no evidenceof an antecedent demonstrative relative phrase, so we cannothold the demise of demonstrative relatives responsible for therise of wh-relatives in the general case.15 / 25Diachrony of wh-formsEarly Indo-EuropeanI Wh-forms derive from PIE interrogative forms*kw i-/kwo-.I Reconstructed as occurring in relatives (particularlyleft-adjoined) as well as interrogatives.(8) paprizziis impurehuišWH33GÍN KÙ.BABBARshekels of silverpa¯ihe gives“The one who is impure, he gives three shekels of silver”(Hittite, 2nd millennium BC, Garrett 2008)I Rough (hypothetical) narrative:Correlative → Left-adjoined free relative → Right-adjoinedfree relative → adjoined relative → embedded relative.16 / 25Diachrony of wh-formsOE free relativesI OE free relatives almost always occur in peripheral positions.I Clause-initial FRs almost always occur with swa. . . swa (≈-ever) and generalizing interpretation.I Definite interpretation (without swa. . . swa) is found in c.1/3of clause-final FRs.(9) SoðliceTruly[swasohwarwhereswasoIsrahelaIsrael’sbearnchildrenwæron],were,þartherewæswasleoht.light‘all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.’(cootest,Exod:10.23.2788)(10) Gemyne,Remember[hwætwhatSanctusSaintPaulusPaulcwæð]said‘Remember what Saint Paul said.’(cogregdC,GDPref_and_3_[C]:15.207.28.2739)I These positional and interpretive factors make clause-finaldefinite FRs amenable to reanalysis as anaphoric relatives.17 / 25Diachrony of wh-formsWhere vs. whoI Where is robustly attested in both positions (c.50%clause-final).I Who is vastly more likely to occur in left-adjoined position(c.90% of the time).I Where in headed relatives emerged significantly before who inheaded relatives.I This is despite apparent functional overlap between where andthere.I The diachronies are prefigured in the antecedent states.18 / 25Diachrony of wh-formsWhere in headed relatives(11) ÞaThencwæðsaidicItotohim,himæteoweshowmeme[þathebyrigelestomb[hwarwhereicIþeyouleigde]].laid“Then I said to him, ‘Show me the tomb where I laid you’.”SeTheHælendSaviourmemeþathenbeobyþæretherihthandright handgenamtookandandmemeutoutlæddeled[hwarwhereicIhinehimbyrede]buried“The Saviour then took me by the right hand and led meout to where I buried him”(Gospel of Nicodemus, mid.12th c., conicodC,Nic_[C]:149.161)19 / 25Section 3Prospects and conclusions pro tem20 / 25Latent ambiguities and reanalysisI Certain strings, even if unambiguous within an individualgrammar, invite alternative analyses.I Reanalysis runs over such latent ambiguities.I The diachrony linking English headed wh-relatives to PIEkw i-/kwo- consists of a chain of such latent ambiguities.I To that extent, the genesis of headed wh-relatives can beunderstood in isolation from system-wide functional concerns(e.g. Maxwell 1982).I This is crucial, because aspects of the diachrony are shared bymany other IE languages with otherwise quite differentgrammars (e.g. Latin).21 / 25Generalization across formsI At the same time, the diachronies of other wh-forms are not soclear.I Hwæt is well-attested in clause-final definite FRs, and is usedwith a preposition (e.g. for what) in headed relatives c.1200,but disappears from many grammars.I Which emerges as a headed relativizer c.1350, c.100 yearsbefore who, in several short-lived configurations (the which,which that, etc.).I Future research will look at the contexts for these historiesfrom the same perspective as above.I Central question: is there any sense in which the emergence ofheaded wh-relatives must be construed as a process ofdiffusion through a paradigm of wh-forms, or can low-leveldevelopments like these be understood purely in terms of theindividual forms?22 / 25Links to acquisition: ProspectsI From this perspective, grammar change dissolves into changein the specification of lexical items.I It therefore should relate directly to the study of lexicalacquisition.I Factors conditioning acquisition should affect patterns ofchange:I Mutual exclusivity should exert a defeasible pressure in favourof 1–1 mapping between forms and functions.I Effects of relative frequency should also condition change.I Any biases which promote similar featural specification offormally similar lexical items will also promote analogicalextension.I All of these factors govern relations between items, so theycan give the impression of a system (or paradigm) withoutgiving the system a status in the grammar.23 / 25ConclusionsI We have covered several reasons not to conceive of theemergence of headed wh-relatives in terms of the AccessibilityHierarchy:I Use of interrogative forms in dependent relatives is an IEphenomenon; the AH doesn’t address this.I Spread from form to form gives a better fit for the diachronythan spread from function to function.I Diachronies of individual forms are often implied by latentambiguities concerning those forms in antecedent stages.I There is no stable set of functions which have beenrelativizable throughout the history of English. This meansthat the replacement of demonstrative relatives by wh-relativescannot be reduced to renouvellement formel.I By paying close attention to individual forms in this way, weshould be able to account for complex, apparently systemic,long-term changes within a fundamentally disorganizedconception of grammar which consists of a set of lexical itemscombined according to a small set of principles.24 / 25ReferencesClackson, J. (2007). Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.De Vries, M. (2002). The Syntax of Relativization. PhD thesis, Universiteit vanAmsterdam.Dekeyser, X. (1986). Relative markers in the Peterborough Chronicle:1070–1154. Folia Linguistica Historica, 7, 93–105.Garrett, A. (2008). The origin of Indo-European embedded relativization.Paper presented at the 10th Diachronic Generative Syntax conference,Cornell University.Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universalgrammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Maxwell, D. (1982). Implications of NP accessibility for diachronic syntax.Folia Linguistica Historica, 3, 135–152.Romaine, S. (1982). Socio-historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Romaine, S. (1984). Towards a typology of relative clause formation inGermanic. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Syntax (pp. 437–470). Berlin: DeGruyter.25 / 25

The source of English headed wh-relative clauses

https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/21759962/LAGB_slides.pdf

The source of English headed wh-relative clauses

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edinburgh Research Explorer