A history of English reflexive pronouns : person, self, and interpretability

A HISTORY OF ENGLISH REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS

LINGUISTIK AKTUELL/LINGUISTICS TODAY

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and

diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empiricaland theoretical problems as these are currently discussed

in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, andsystematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust

empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

Series Editor

Werner AbrahamUniversity of California at Berkeley

University of ViennaRijksuniversiteit Groningen

Advisory Editorial Board

Guglielmo Cinque (University of Venice)Günther Grewendorf (J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt)

Liliane Haegeman (University of Lille, France)Hubert Haider (University of Salzburg)Christer Platzack (University of Lund)Ian Roberts (University of Stuttgart)

Ken Safir (Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ)Höskuldur Thráinsson (University of Iceland, Reykjavik)

Lisa deMena Travis (McGill University)Sten Vikner (University of Stuttgart)

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (University of Groningen)

Volume 39

Elly van Gelderen

A History of English Reflexive PronounsPerson, Self, and Interpretability

A HISTORY OF

ENGLISH REFLEXIVEPRONOUNS

PERSON, SELF, AND INTERPRETABILITY

ELLY VAN GELDEREN

Arizona State University

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANYAMSTERDAM / PHILADELPHIA

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements ofAmerican National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paperfor Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

8 TM

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gelderen, Elly van.A history of English reflexive pronouns : person, self, and interpretability / Elly van Gelderen .

p. cm. -- (Linguistik aktuell / Linguistics today, ISSN 0166-0829; v. 39)Includes bibliographical references (p.) and indexes.1. English language--Pronoun. 2. English language--Reflexives. 3. English language--Grammar, Historical. I. Title. II. Linguistik aktuell ; Bd. 39.

PE1261.G45 2000415--dc21 00-057202isbn 90 272 2760 8 (eur) / 1 55619 988 0 (us) (Hb; alk. paper)

© 2000 – John Benjamins B.V.No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any othermeans, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O.Box 75577 · 1070 an amsterdam · The NetherlandsJohn Benjamins North America · P.O.Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Notes for the user and list of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Background on functional categories (FCs) and features. . . . . . . . . 3

0.1.1 Functional categories and checking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.1.2 Interpretability of features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

0.2 Background on binding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120.3 Old English morphology and inherent case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200.4 The structure of pronouns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220.5 Justification of the texts used and outline of the book. . . . . . . . . . 24

C 1Old English reflexives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271.1 General situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281.2 Beowulf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

1.2.1 Simple pronouns used as reflexives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331.2.2 ‘Self’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

1.3 Junius and Exeter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431.3.1 Simple pronouns used as reflexives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441.3.2 ‘Self’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

1.4 Alfred and Ælfric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501.4.1 Simple pronoun versus ‘self’ in Alfred. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501.4.2 A person difference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521.4.3 More changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

1.5 Dialect differences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 561.6 Account and conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

C 2Reflexives in Middle and later English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632.1 Early Middle English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

2.1.1 Grammaticalization: from adjective to noun. . . . . . . . . . . . 642.1.2 First and second person reflexives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672.1.3 Third person reflexives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712.1.4 Binding domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742.1.5 Reflexives in other texts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

2.2 Middle English: The ‘Gawain’ poet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792.3 Chaucer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862.4 Dialect considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 912.5 Changing features and the grammaticalization of ‘self’. . . . . . . . . 95

2.5.1 Features and reflexives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952.5.2 The grammaticalization of ‘himself’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

2.6 Later developments: Strengthening of the reflexive and loss ofinterpretable features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092.6.1 Later reflexives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1102.6.2 The loss of Interpretable features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

2.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

C 3Pro-drop and feature strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213.1 Background on pro-drop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1223.2 Old English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

3.2.1 Pro-drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1253.2.2 Person split. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

3.3 Middle and Early Modern English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1373.3.1 Early Middle English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1373.3.2 Middle English and later. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

3.4 Object pro-drop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1473.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

C 4The loss of verbal agreement and verb-movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1514.1 Rich inflection and movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1524.2 Old English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

4.2.1 First and second person plural. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1574.2.2 First and second person singular. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1634.2.3 Third person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1674.2.4 The link to pro-drop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

4.3 Middle and Early Modern English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1704.3.1 Early Middle English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1704.3.2 Middle English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1754.3.3 Early Modern English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

4.4 The trigger for C, AgrS, and T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1804.5 Changes in verb-movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1854.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

C 5The loss of inherent case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1975.1 Inherent case in Old English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

5.1.1 Background on inherent case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1985.1.2 Accusative versus Dative forms: a person split. . . . . . . . . . 199

5.2 Use of inherent Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2055.3 The loss of inherent Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

5.3.1 The loss of morphological Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2115.3.2 Other evidence for the loss of inherent Case. . . . . . . . . . . 214

5.4 Conclusion and further changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

C 6Ergativity and the person split . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2236.1 Old English possessives and the person split. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

6.1.1 Possession. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2246.1.2 A person split. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

6.2 Impersonals and the person split. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2286.2.1 Impersonals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2286.2.2 Person split: account and evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

6.3 Early Middle English and the demise of the person split. . . . . . . . 2396.4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

C 7Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477.1 General conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2477.2 Text-by-text conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

7.2.1 Old English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2487.2.2 Middle English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2507.2.3 Early Modern and Modern English. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

7.3 Ramifications for theories of change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2517.4 Further research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Name Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

Preface

There are certain puzzling person and number differences in the history ofEnglish pronouns: some lose morphologically distinct Case before others;some occur with verbs that lack agreement; some can be left out (pro-drop);and some are reinforced with ‘self’ to function reflexively earlier than others.In this book, I give one explanation for these phenomena. Using Reinhart &Reuland’s ideas on reflexives, I argue that the ‘strength’ of certain featuresof pronouns differs and that it is related to Case, person, and numberfeatures. If their features are ‘weak’, pronouns can be anaphors; they cannotbe left out; and the inflection on the verb can be reduced. If the features are‘strong’, pronouns cannot be anaphors; they can be left out; and verbalagreement is not reduced. I argue that these features change and this changecan be considered a change from Interpretable to Uninterpretable features.

The main title of this book reflects the primary question I started outwith: what enables simple pronouns to function as reflexives. The bookprovides a description of certain aspects of Old, Middle, and Early ModernEnglish pronouns. The subtitle reflects some of the theoretical explanationsfor the changes: person features are crucial;self changes from an adjectiveto a noun; and features, understood in a Minimalist framework, becomeUninterpretable.

Parts of this book were presented during the 1996 Berkeley LinguisticSociety meetings, the 1996 Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference inMadison, the LINGUIST Binding Theory Conference in October/November1996, the 1997 International Linguistic Association in Georgetown, the 1997Linguistic Association of Great Britain in Edinburgh, the 1997 GermanicLinguistics Annual Conference in Los Angeles, the Workshop on ComparativeGermanic Syntax at Cornell in July 1997, the 1997 International Conferenceon Historical Linguistics in Düsseldorf, the International Symposium on

x PREFACE

reflexives and reciprocals in Boulder in August 1997, the 40th Anniversaryof Generativism, and the 1999 West Coast Conference on Formal Linguisticsin Tucson. I would like to thank the audiences for comments. I would alsolike to thank Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Eloise Jelinek, Ed Keenan, Eric Reuland,Jan Koster, Robert Stockwell, Aryeh Faltz, Olga Fischer, and especiallyWerner Abraham, Jose Bonneau and Harry Bracken for discussion and com-ments. Johanna Wood helped compile the pro-drop and some of the agree-ment data and made me clarify many of the arguments. ViktorijaTodorovska’s work as a copy-editor was invaluable. She not only forced me(nicely) to be more consistent in style but she also asked probing questionsthat helped improve the contents. I’d like to thank Teresa Wells for editorialassistance, and my colleagues Karen Adams, Dawn Bates, Jean Brink, TomHudak, Jeff MacSwan, Dhira Mahoney, Don Nilsen, and Helene Ossipov forpatient advice. Kees Vaes and the Production Department of JohnBenjamins’, have again been a pleasure to work with. I also thank twoanonymous referees; I hope they’ll see the improvements their commentsbrought. Travel has been supported by grants from the English departmentand the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at ASU; and research assistancethrough a grant from FGIA at ASU.

Apache Junction, AZMarch 2000

List of tables

0.1 Old English pronouns 211.1 Adjectival inflection of ‘self’ 311.2 The use of dative/accusative pronouns in Beowulf 381.3 First versus third person pronoun modified by ‘self’ in PC 531.4 First versus third person/ and ‘self’ in PC 531.5 First person/ singular versus plural modified by ‘self’

in PC 541.6 ‘Self’ forms in Rushworth, Lindisfarne, and Corpus 582.1 Emphatic use of ‘self’ 662.2 Changes in the first person singular reflexive in Layamon 712.3 Third person reflexives and forms with ‘self’ in Layamon 732.4 Reflexive singular pronouns in Chaucer 913.1 Numbers of null versus overt subject in Lindisfarne and

Rushworth 1334.1 Old English strong verbal inflection 1554.2 Old English weak verbal I inflection 1564.3 First and second person plural inflection in VS constructions 1624.4 Middle English present indicative verbal inflection 1704.5 First and second person plural in VS in Caligula 1734.6 SV and VS in relation to-th and -s 1894.7 V-to-C and V-to-I and inflection withdo 1904.8 V-to-C and V-to-I and inflection withhave 1905.1 Old English pronouns 1995.2 Old English noun inflections 2005.3 Dative versus accusative case in singular Old English

pronouns 2045.4 Middle English first and second person pronouns 211

xii LIST OF TABLES

6.1 Ergative versus non-ergative uses of first, second, and thirdperson dative pronouns 238

6.2 Ergative versus nominative pronouns 238

Notes for the user and list of abbreviations

Quotation marks as in ‘self’ are used when orthographic variants occur, e.g.for self, seolf, sylf etc.

I provide two kinds of glosses. The one is a word-for-word gloss, usingabbreviated symbols and the other, enclosed in single quotation marks,provides a freer translation. I do not always provide both since the meaningis often clear from the word-by-word gloss; and sometimes a word-by-wordgloss is redundant.

The glosses only list morphological features such as accusative or dualin cases where this is relevant for the argumentation. Please see the listbelow for explanations of these.

Abbreviated terms

-1-;-1- first person singularaffix; first person plural

-2-;-2- second person singularaffix; second plural

-3-;-3- third person singularaffix; third plural

accusative CaseAgrO functional head:

agreement with theobject

AgrS functional head:agreement with thesubject

AuxiliaryBeo Beowulf

C(P) functional category:Complementizer(Phrase)

CM Cursor MundiD(P) functional category:

Determiner (Phrase)[D] categorial D-features dative CaseELI extended lexical item expletive-F- affix indicating femi-

nine Noun classFC functional categoryFP Functional Phrase, i.e.

any Functional Category

xiv NOTES FOR THE USER AND LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

future genitive CaseHM Hali MeidhadHom HomiliesHRT The History of the Holy

Rood TreeI(P) functional category:

Inflection (Phrase)LF Logical FormLin 1 Lindisfarne Gospels,

book of MatthewLin 2 idem, books of Mark,

Luke and JohnMS manuscriptNeg(P) functional category:

Negation (Phrase)n(P) small Noun Phrase, see

0.4N(P) Noun (Phrase)[N] categorial nominal

features nominative Case mark-

ingNumP Number Phrase oblique Case markingOED Oxford English Dictio-

nary, see Bibiliography.P preposition-P- plural affixPC Pastoral CarePF Phonological Formφ- person, number and

gender features

The Paston LettersPsP Person Phrase reflexiveRush 1 Rushworth Glosses,

book of MatthewRush 2 idem, books of Mark,

Luke and John[sN] strong N-features, see

0.1.1.Spec–Head Specifier Head Agree-

ment[sV] strong V-features, see

0.1.1.SV Subject VerbT(P) functional category:

Tense (Phrase), to con-tain tense features

UFF uninterpretable formalfeature

UG Universal Grammarv light verb, see 0.1.2.[V] categorial verbal fea-

turesV(P) structurally, Verb

(Phrase)VP as text,Vespasian Psal-

ter.VS Verb Subject% unattested# not compiled* ungrammatical or

reconstructed

Introduction

In the course of the history of English, morphological case and agreementgradually disappear. At the same time, auxiliaries, determiners, pronouns andprepositions become more frequent, and the word order becomes fixed.These changes are often described as transforming the language fromsynthetic (lacking auxiliaries, etc.) to analytic (having auxiliaries, etc.), thestrictness of word order compensating for the lack of case and agreementendings, and the introduction of auxiliaries compensating for the loss ofinflection for tense and aspect. Thus, word order and morphological agree-ment are seen as different ways of expressing grammatical relations: OldEnglish has morphological case and agreement but relatively few auxiliaries,determiners, pronouns and prepositions; Modern English has very little caseand agreement but many auxiliaries, determiners, pronouns and prepositionsthat occupy fixed positions. In addition, in Old English (as well as in manyother synthetic languages), specially marked reflexives do not occur, whereasin Modern English (and in other analytic languages), they do. This booklinks the changes in reflexives to the transformation of English from asynthetic to an analytic language.

In the generative framework of the 1980s, a fixed word order such asthat of Modern English comes about because lexical elements move tocertain positions (functional categories), as in Chomsky (1986b). Sinceagreement and case are situated in these positions, movement is seen asmotivated by the need to check case and agreement. However, this frame-work provides no explanation for why case and agreement would be lesspresent in Modern English than in Old English, or why word order would bemore constrained in Modern English than in Old English, or why the subjectcan be left out in Old English. I will account for these phenomena and basemy account on an argument advanced in van Gelderen (1993) that certain

2 INTRODUCTION

functional categories (for the auxiliary, the determiner, etc.) are introducedor activated in the course of the history of English. If this is the case, wordorder becomes fixed because auxiliaries such aswill andbeoccupy function-al categories and lexical items move to these projections to check their caseand agreement features. I examine the changes in case and agreement featuresof pronouns as English becomes more analytical, using the insights providedby reflexively used pronouns and special reflexive pronouns. I argue that thefeature composition is responsible. I also describe the relationship betweenword order and overt inflection. Developments with null subjects, agreement,and case can be argued to parallel those of reflexives closely. Hence, I notonly connect the loss of case and agreement to the introduction of strict wordorder, but also relate the introduction of specially marked reflexive pronounsto the increasingly analytic character of the language.

Reflexive pronouns such asmyself in Modern English are not fullyreferential: they need to refer to another element in the sentence. Personalpronouns such asme, on the other hand, are somewhat referential and arebarred from referring to arguments ‘locally’ (cf. Chomsky 1981; Koster1993; Reinhart & Reuland 1993). The reason for the difference, I argue inthis book, lies in the feature composition of the pronouns, namely the factthat the features ofmyselfare not as specific as those ofme. Work by Rizzi(1990) and Woolford (1999) explains the lack of reflexive forms in subjectposition through the lack of agreement features, which also indicates thatreflexives are underspecified. In Old English, unlike in Modern English,there are no special reflexive forms; instead general pronouns are usedreflexively, as they are in Old Egyptian (cf. Gardiner 1927: 40) and MiddleDutch (cf. Hermodsson 1952: 263ff.), for example. I relate this to Reinhart& Reuland’s (1993) condition on antecedent-anaphor links: certain case andperson/number features render a pronoun reflexive. The book examines whatthese features are, how they change, and how this change is related to thelarger changes in the language.

In a number of Old and Middle English constructions involving pro-nouns, including those with pronouns functioning reflexively, there is aperson split. For instance, first and second person pronouns continue to beused as reflexives (I see me) long after third person ones cease to do so.There are other differences as well. In certain Old English texts, the inflec-tion of ‘self’ after third person pronouns is definite, whereas it is indefinite

INTRODUCTION 3

in other cases, indicating that ‘thou self’ and ‘Beowulf self’ are different from‘him self’; case on first and second person pronouns disappears earlier than onthird person ones; pro-drop is more common with third person pronouns; andverbal agreement is marked more on third person verbs. There is a similar splitbetween plural and singular: plural has ‘conservative’ reflexives, no morpho-logically specified case, less pro-drop, and less agreement than singular. Toexplain the split(s), I argue that two changes occur in pronominal features, atdifferent rates for different features: (a) case becomes structural rather thaninherent (orθ-related), and (b) person and number features become checked infunctional categories. These changes can be phrased in terms of Chomsky’s(1995, 1998a, b) distinction between features that are Interpretable, i.e.relevant to the interpretation, and those that are not. Structural case featuresare Uninterpretable and must be checked before Logical Form since they areirrelevant there. Thus, in Modern English case is Uninterpretable while inEarly Old English it is Interpretable as are some of the person and numberfeatures. These person splits are also obvious from different frequency of use,a phenomenon not usually dealt with in a generative approach. My accountis that changes in feature composition are gradual, i.e. a particular pronounhas either Interpretable or Uninterpretable features for a period of time.

The explanations provided in this book are Minimalist, but the data aredescribed in general terms so as to be accessible to linguists working in otherframeworks. The outline of this introductory chapter is as follows: in the firstsection, I provide some background on functional categories and Minimalistfeatures; in the second section, I outline the theory of Binding I use; in thethird section, for ease of reference, I list the general personal pronouns inOld English with some instances (in later chapters, other paradigms are listedwhere they become relevant); and in the fourth section, I provide a structurefor pronouns. In the last section, I justify the selection of texts I have madeand provide a short outline of the book.

0.1 Background on functional categories (FCs) and features

In the first subsection, I outline some basic notions on phrase structure andfunctional categories (FC) in a pre-Minimalist (Chomsky 1986b) andMinimalist (Chomsky 1992, 1995) framework. In the second one, I focus onthe role of ±Interpretable features.

4 INTRODUCTION

0.1.1 Functional categories and checking

Chomsky (1998b: 123) writes that “[f]rom the origins of generative grammar,the fundamental operations were taken to be formation of the lexicon andrecursive operations of two kinds that make use of lexical items: phrasestructure and transformational rules”. Much of the effort of making theformalism less language specific and more universal was aimed at generaliz-ing phrase structure rules (e.g. through X′-theory) and reducing transforma-tions to one (move-α). The Minimalist framework continues that: phrasestructure rules become ‘bare’, i.e. no intermediate levels appear, and lexicalitems are combined by ‘merge’ and moved if necessary. In Chomsky(1995: 235ff.), lexical items are taken from the lexicon (and inserted in thenumeration) fully inflected, but see Halle & Marantz 1993 for alternatives.For the sake of convenience, a lot of work still assumes explicit phrasestructure rules (rather than bare ones) and, hence, I outline those here.

In Chomsky (1986b: 2–4), FCs such as the complementizer and theauxiliary are considered on a par with lexical categories and head their ownprojections. Thus, in (1), a C(omplementizer) such asthat and an auxiliarysuch aswill project to full maximal projections, namely CP and I(nflection)P,which also contain a specifier position. The specifier of CP can be usedwhenwh-elements move in questions and, when C is not occupied bythat,the auxiliary can move there in questions as well. The grammatical subjectoccupies the specifier of IP position and the Specifier–Head (Spec–Head)relationship accounts for nominative Case and verbal agreement between theNP in Specifier position and the verbal element in the Head I position (fromnow on, whenever Case is used in a technical sense, it will be capitalized):

INTRODUCTION 5

(1) CP

Spec C′

C IP

Spec I′

I VP

V′

V NPsee BelawillZeldathat

Chomsky (1992: 173), based on Pollock (1989) and Chomsky (1989), i.e.‘early’ Minimalism, argues that all Case is checked in a Spec–Head relation-ship. For this purpose, several FCs, such as AgrS and AgrO, are introduced.NPs move to the Specifier and verbs to the Head positions. Nominative Caseis checked against AgrS and objective against AgrO. Verbal agreement ischecked in a Head–Head relationship between V and Agr after the verbincorporates into the Agr Head. The person and number features of the headare given determined by the NP (just as the verb determines the Case: if inAgrS, nominative; if in AgrO, accusative). The checking of Case andagreement occurs either overtly or covertly, depending on whether thefeatures in the functional head are strong or weak. In Chomsky (1992: 196,199), there are two types of features: N-features and V-features. The formerare responsible for triggering NP-movement and for checking Case; the latterfor triggering V-movement and for checking agreement. Overt checking ofthe NP takes place in a Spec–Head relationship as in (2) before Spell-Out (orat s-structure in earlier frameworks); covert movement will mean that theelement must wait until LF to check its features because this is ‘cheaper’.English is generally assumed to have weak V-features and the verb does notmove overtly. Therefore, in (2), a French example is given where both theNP and V move overtly:

6 INTRODUCTION

(2) AgrP

SpecZorai

Agr′

Agr XP

VP

V′

Vtj

...

V

will-arrivearriveraj

Agr[sV][sN] ti

...

Other FCs are introduced as well. Thus, T(ense)P accompanied by V- andN-features is included in (3), which is a typical tree structure. Categoriessuch as(ect)P, VoiceP, Perf(ect)P, Num(ber)P, PersonP and others arealso possible:

(3) CP

Spec C′

AgrSP

AgrS′

TP

T′

NegP

Neg′

AgrOP

AgrO′

VPAgrO

Spec

Neg

C

Spec

AgrS

Spec

T

Spec

INTRODUCTION 7

Chomsky (1995: 349ff.) argues that there is no direct evidence for AgrS andAgrO in English. Since agreement, tense and Case features would be checkedthrough Head–Head and Spec–Head agreement in the IP in (1) above, thetense and agreement features are not necessarily connected to one particularfunctional head and consequently not all projections need be present.

As mentioned above, trees such as (3) are no longer assumed inChomsky (1994, 1995). After taking elements from the lexicon, they ‘merge’into phrases such as (4). Through merge, the Head I(nflection) and Specifierare added to (4) after which the V and N move into these positions. Thus,the tree is built from bottom to top:

(4) VP

NZora

Vleft

In the remainder of this book, and especially in Chapter 4, I assume aversion of (1), i.e. a tree structure with C and I. For the sake of clarity, mystructures will not be bare as in (4), but nothing hinges on this.

0.1.2 Interpretability of features

For each linguistic expression, a grammar makes available two kinds ofinformation, phonetic and semantic, or a Phonetic Form (PF) and a LogicalForm (LF), in older terminology. The PF representation gives information tothe Articulatory-Perceptual system and the LF one to the Conceptual-Inten-tional system. Legibility must be ensured at these interface levels (Chomsky1998b: 119). Features are therefore divided as to whether they are phonetic,i.e. not allowed at LF, or semantic, i.e. not allowed at PF. Thus, a derivationsplits into two parts. There are, however, features in language that are neitherphonetic nor semantic, thereby violating legibility. These features are Uninter-pretable and do not “enter into interpretation at LF” (Chomsky 1995: 277);they exist “to force movement, sometimes overtly” (p. 278) to a higher FC.

In the generative framework, movement has always been seen asproblematic. As Chomsky (1998a: 42) puts it, “[w]hy language should havethis [movement] property is an interesting question, which has been dis-cussed for almost 40 years without resolution”. Verbal agreement and Case

8 INTRODUCTION

are problematic as well since they are not relevant to the interpretation inModern English. Chomsky (1998a: 42–8) proposes to connect both of theseproblems: the ‘offending’ Uninterpretable Case and agreement are eliminatedthrough movement.

Thus, Uninterpretable features trigger movement but Interpretable onesdo not. Interpretable features are relevant at LF and do not erase or deletebut can be ‘used over’. Uninterpretable features explain several phenomenaearlier treated as separate; for instance, (a) an NP has one and only oneUninterpretable Case feature, as (5) shows, and (b) the features justify theinclusion of FCs in the numeration and the ensuing movement into the headsand specifiers of these projections. In (5),Zoya cannot check the Case inboth subject positions:

(5) *Zoyai seemedti was annoyed with Amir.

According to Chomsky (1995: 283), the person and number, i.e.φ-, featuresof Nouns are Interpretable because they can be reused. The example givenby Chomsky is (6) whereJohnmoves to the subject of the IP to check itsCase, checkingφ-features along the way:

(6) Johni is [ti Agr [ti intelligent]].

However, in (6), there is no agreement betweenintelligent and John, andAgr may not have been activated. Alternatively, the movement to SpecAgrPmay have to do with the categorial N-features in Agr that must be checked.Thus, there is no empirical evidence that theφ-features are Interpretable. Inlanguages other than English, there is such evidence since the numberfeatures appear twice, both on the verb and on the adjective or past partici-ple. An instance is French where the number features in (7) appear on boththe finite verbsont‘are-3’ and the past participleparties‘left-.’ Theperson features are only marked on the finite auxiliary and the genderfeatures only on the past participle (both in bold):

(7) Les femmessont parties.the women are-3 left-.

‘The women have left.’

There are other languages that have number and gender marked on the pastparticiple. In Spanish, for instance, the passive participle as in (8), inflectsfor number and gender, but not for person; and in Swedish, number is

INTRODUCTION 9

marked on the past participle in (9) (there is no gender in the plural onSwedish verbs and finite verbs show no inflection). The data in (7) to (9)might indicate that person is not Interpretable and cannot be checked twice:

(8) Las casas son vendidas.the houses are-3 sold-.

(9) Tre bilder blev målade.three pictures were painted-

There are, however, languages where person is marked on both auxiliary andparticiple. Van Driem (1987: 119) gives instances from Limbu, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Nepal. Anderson (1999) cites other cases ofwhat he calls ‘split inflection’, namely Gorum (an Austroasiatic language)and Venda (a Bantu language) display person on both the auxiliary and thepast participle. This is expected if the interpretability of features varies cross-linguistically.

With object agreement, as in (10) from O’odham, person features (inbold) do occur on the participle. Here, person appears as well as number,and so, nothing blocks person marking on participles. It just does not seemto be the case that person is ‘re-used’, i.e. Interpretable, in (7) to (9):

(10) Ceoj ’o ’añi ñceggia.boy is/was me 1-fighting‘The boy is/was fighting me.’ (Zepeda 1983)

I therefore argue, contra Chomsky (1995), that person features in a numberof languages (including Modern English) are Uninterpretable and are checkedonly once. Number can be re-used as in (7) to (9) above.

There is some dialectal evidence from Belfast English that the featuresof pronouns are checked differently from those of full NPs. Henry (1995: 16)describes Hiberno English constructions as in (11) and (12) where thenumber features of the full noun in (11) are not checked but the ones of thepronoun in (12) are:

(11) The eggsare/is cracked.

(12) Theyare/*is cracked.

In standard English, theφ-features of both pronouns and full nouns must bechecked before LF, again an indication that person might be Uninterpretable.

10 INTRODUCTION

According to Chomsky (1995: 232ff.), overt NP- and V-movementoccurs if the features of the FC are strong; covert feature attraction takesplace when the features of the FC are weak. Thus, the subject moves toSpecIP overtly to check the strong categorial feature ([D])1 in I. Theφ-fea-tures and Case move along and are checked in due course. For English,assuming the non-listed, categorial V-features are weak, movement of thesubject to check [D] is the only overt movement necessary. Theφ-featuresof the verb or Auxiliary are attracted to I without overt movement of theverb. The object NP (or its features) moves to the specifier of (the small) vand the main verb adjoins to v. The result is that all the Uninterpretablefeatures are checked:

(13) 2IP

I¢

I[D][Case]

vP

v[D]

VP

NP V¢

V[phi][Case]sees

NP[phi][Case]a javelina

2

[Case][phi]The woman

If only strong features trigger overt movement, there is a possibility thatUninterpretable features are not checked by LF. However, in Chomsky(1998a, b), this is no longer a possibility and features can be attractedthrough feature-attraction even if the lexical element does not itself move.

1. In Chomsky (1995: 233), a D-feature is assumed to trigger NP movement whereas inChomsky (1992) it is an N(P)-feature.

2. As in Chomsky (1995: 349), I assume that Functional Categories do not haveφ-features butthat I has Case (when finite). In (13), Chomsky allows for the subject being in SpecvP ratherthan being in SpecVP.

INTRODUCTION 11

Feature-attraction is more economical and involves only head-movement ofthe features (Chomsky 1995: 271); it is formulated to “have the followingproperty: an uninterpretable formal feature UFF in the extended lexical itemELI seeks the closest matching feature F in its c-command domain andattaches it to ELI, UFF then erasing if the match is successful” (1998b: 124).Thus, the modification from Chomsky’s (1995) analysis is that it is not onlystrong features that must be checked before LF is reached, but all Uninter-pretable features since only Interpretable features are visible at LF. Hence,the strong/weak distinction is replaced. The evidence for this is (14), inwhich the expletivetheredoes not check the Case features, since otherwisethe Case features of the postverbalfive javelinaswould not be attracted. Ifthis happened, the Uninterpretable Case features of the NP would remainunchecked and the sentence would not be well-formed:

(14) Thereare five javelinas in our backyard.

As Chomsky (1995) notes, if the expletive were present to check theφ-features, the Interpretable pluralφ-features of the noun would not beattracted to I(nflection) and again, (14) would not converge. Since (14) isgrammatical,there is only inserted to check the Uninterpretable categorialfeatures. The problem now is to explain why the subject position in (14)must be lexically filled and why attracted D-features do not suffice in (15).Some stipulation for D-features must be made:

(15) *e are five javelinas in our backyard.

So far, the Case discussed in (13) is grammatical or structural Case, depen-dent on the nominal’s position in the sentence. There is another kind ofCase, namely inherent Case, dependent on the thematic structure. Chomsky(1986a: 193) “distinguish[es] the ‘structural Cases’ objective and nominative,assigned in terms of S-structure position, from the ‘inherent Cases’ assignedat D-structure… Inherent Case is associated with [θ]-marking, while structur-al Case is not”. Inherent Case is relevant at LF. As mentioned, in OldEnglish, there is more evidence for inherent Case than in Modern English(cf. also van Gelderen 1996b). For structural Case, there is a one-to-onerelationship between Cases and nominal elements. Belletti (1988) andMahajan (1990) assume that inherent Case is optionally assigned/checked.The nominal, when it does not have inherent Case, may check its structuralCase, if available. Thus, in many languages, nominals have either structural

12 INTRODUCTION

or inherent Case. The structural Case features are Uninterpretable but theinherent ones are not. The former make it necessary for a lexical element tomove to an FC; the latter do not.

In conclusion, I assume that linguistic expressions have a phonetic anda semantic component. In the ‘ideal case’, all features would be relevant ateither LF or PF. This is, however, not true since there are features that forcemovement that are neither semantic not phonetic. These are the Uninterpret-able Case and agreement features. They force movement but are not relevantto the interpretation. Above, and throughout the book, I argue that languagesand different stages of the same language differ as to which features areInterpretable. In Modern English, Case features and the person and numberfeatures of verbs are Uninterpretable but, I argue, there is no direct evidence(cf. (6) versus (7)) that all nominalφ-features are Interpretable. In otherlanguages, number features on nominals are Interpretable, but not person.Case features are Uninterpretable in Modern English (i.e. structural) butInterpretable in Old English (i.e. inherent). Thus, the status of featuresultimately accounts for differences in word order, Case and agreement acrosslanguages, and for whether a language is synthetic or analytic. It will alsoaccount for the referential or non-referential nature of pronouns.

0.2 Background on binding

In this section, I outline several theories that have been formulated toaccount for binding phenomena, namely Chomsky (1981, 1986a), Reinhart& Reuland (1993), and Koster (1993). These attempt to explain the bindingdomain and differences in this domain across languages. I also discussBurzio (1996) since he provides an account of person differences. I adoptand adapt Reinhart & Reuland’s account by focussing on the Chain Condi-tion. The main points I want to explain with this condition in the remainderof the book are: (a) why pronouns function reflexively in Old English, (b)why special reflexives appear first outside the argument domain of the verb,and (c) what explains the person split. I will not be concerned with LongDistance Anaphora (cf. Koster & Reuland 1991; Brinton 1995) or ‘irregularreflexives’ (cf. Cantrall 1974).

Chomsky (1981: 220, 1986a: 166) formulates three well-known Bindingprinciples:

INTRODUCTION 13

(16) A an anaphor must be bound in its governing categoryB a pronoun must be free in its governing categoryC an R-expression must be free

An instance of an anaphor ismyself in (17). According to A, an anaphormust be bound in a particular domain, defined in Chomsky (1981) as itsgoverning category. The governing category includes the anaphor, itsgovernor, and a Subject (either the subject of a non-finite clause or theAgreement part of a finite clause). Thus, (18) is ungrammatical sincemyselfis not bound inside the domain that includes it, the governorsaw, and thefinite Agreement:

(17) I seemyself.

(18) *I thought that [she sawmyself].

Before the inclusion of Subject in the domain, the Specified Subject Condi-tion (e.g. Chomsky 1973: 90) and Tensed Sentence Condition (e.g. Chomsky1973: 98) excluded sentences such as (18), (19), and (20):

(19) *I want [her to seemyself].

(20) *I thought that [myselfhad won].

In (19), myselfcannot be bound outside the subordinate clause since thesubjecther blocks this, and in (20),myselfcannot be bound outside thetensed subordinate byI. Both (19) and (20) can be accounted for by includ-ing Subject in the definition of governing category sinceher would be theSubject in (19) and the finite Agreement would be in (20). Cross-linguistical-ly, there is variation as to what constitutes a governing category. Forinstance, the Korean counterparts of (19) and (20) are grammatical sinceKorean does not include Subject. Instead, anaphors must be bound in theroot clause (see Wexler & Manzini 1987 for more on cross-linguisticparameters).

According to Condition B, pronouns such asme in (21) must be free. In(21), the pronoun is bound and hence the sentence is ungrammatical. Thus,anaphors and pronouns are frequently in complementary distribution:

(21) *I sawme.

R-expressions, where R stands for Referential, such as the second NP in(22), must be free in the entire sentence:

14 INTRODUCTION

(22) *Rolando noticed thatRolandoleft early.

In Chomsky (1995: 211), the three conditions are recast as interpretativeprinciples at LF but the basic insights remain. In this book, anaphors as in(16A) will mainly be referred to as reflexives. When a referring item is notin an argument position (e.g. not a direct, indirect, or prepositional objectposition), it is referred to as an emphatic (cf. König & Siemund 1998, 1999for conditions under which these appear).

Other cross-linguistic and cross-dialectal variation in the binding domainexists in the famous ‘snake’-sentences. It is well-known that in English, as(23) below shows, the pronoun can be coreferential with the subject; inGerman, as in (24),ihr cannot and the reflexivesich is needed; and inDutch, as in (25), both are possible (although not all speakers accepthaar):

(23) I saw a snake near *myself/me.

(24) Sie sah eine Schlange nebensich/*ihr.‘She saw a snake next to herself/her.’

(25) Zij zag een slang naastzich/haar.‘She saw a snake next to herself/her.’

Other languages display similar variation (cf. de Jong 1996 for Romance),which is problematic since the governing category for an element should notbe so different for different languages. Condition (B) is also problematic for(26) and for languages such as Old English where sentences such as (21) aregrammatical (see also Baker 1995; Haiman 1995):

(26) I’ll buy mea dictionary.

To account for the ‘snake’-sentences, different types of solutions have beenproposed. Reinhart & Reuland (1993) argue that Binding Theory should beformulated as a condition on predicates (the verb and its arguments) ratherthan as a condition on anaphors and pronouns. Their conditions are listed in(27) (I will ignore the distinction between syntactic and semantic predicates):

(27) A A reflexive-marked syntactic predicate is reflexive.B A reflexive semantic predicate is reflexive-marked. (p. 678)

In (17) above, the predicate is reflexive-marked (one of its arguments has-self) and therefore its two arguments must be coindexed. This condition ismet sinceI andmyselfcorefer. In (21), the predicate is reflexive since two

INTRODUCTION 15

of its arguments are coindexed but it is ungrammatical since it is notreflexively marked. In (23),me is not part of the predicate and hence thepredicate need not be marked as reflexive. In sentences such as (28), thereflexive is an argument (a benefactive object) and, hence, part of thepredicate, as opposed to (23), where the pronoun is part of an adverbial:

(28) I bought it formyself.

Reinhart & Reuland’s definition differs from the three conditions in (16) inthat the governing category, i.e. the binding domain, is reformulated as thepredicate. Indirect or beneficial objects as in (26) and (28) are problematicbecause they are sometimes treated as obligatory arguments and sometimesas optional ones. This has consequences for Binding Theory. Reinhart &Reuland’s Condition (B) is stated so that a predicate with two coindexedarguments must have reflexive marking. Hence, (21) is ungrammatical. In(23) and (26), ifme is not a proper argument to the predicatesseeandbuyrespectively, reflexive marking is not necessary and the sentences arecorrectly predicted to be grammatical.

In addition to (27), Reinhart & Reuland claim there is a Chain Conditionthat allows pronouns to be used anaphorically if they are not fully markedfor Case andφ-features. This allows for variation among languages andbetween stages of a language as I show in Chapters 1 and 2. The Conditionon A-Chains can be formulated as in (29):

(29) Condition on A-ChainsA maximal A-chain contains exactly one link —α1 — that is both +Rand Case marked (cf. Reinhart & Reuland, p. 696).

The property R involves referential independence and is defined as having “afull specification forφ-features and structural Case” (p. 697). In Reuland &Reinhart (1995: 255ff.), a full specification includes having a nominative/accusative contrast. Nichols (1997: 79–84) also shows that inherently Casemarked arguments in Zuni are not visible to other arguments, which meansthat inherently Case marked elements are not referential for purposes ofbinding. So, only by being checked, i.e., as I argue, by having Uninterpret-able features, can an element function referentially.

Even though Reinhart & Reuland do not mention (26), the ChainCondition allows anaphoricme if one argues that indirect objects do notcheck structural Case but have inherent Case connected to thematic structure

16 INTRODUCTION

and would not be fully specified.3 Likewise, the pronoun in (23) could beargued to have inherent Case (even though pseudo-passive constructions donot provide evidence either way: both ‘She was looked next to/near’ and‘Her was looked next to/near’ are ungrammatical).4 So, Reinhart & Reu-land’s theory contains both a condition on predicates and one on arguments.

In Old English, predicates are not reflexively marked, i.e. there is noargument marked byself. This means that Reinhart & Reuland’s Conditionon Predicates does not apply. The Chain Condition does, however. I willshow that, in Old English, the Chain Condition is relevant with respect toCase features, and in Middle English, with respect to person and numberfeatures. The question then arises if the Condition on Predicates can bereduced to the Chain Condition for other languages as well. I argue it can forModern English, for example, if one considers forms such asmyselfunspeci-fied for person features, and hence unable to be referential. In Old English,‘self’ is an adjective, but in Middle English, it becomes a noun and the headof the reflexive pronoun complex. Due to the lack of person features ofselfin (Middle and) Modern English, the features of the pronoun complex areunspecified and the complex can function reflexively. This lack of personfeatures is similar to the situation in Yiddish, for example, wherezikh(Weinreich 1949 [1965]: 100) can be used as a first, second or third personreflexive. The reasonme is ungrammatical in (21) can also be explainedusing the Chain Condition since the Case is structural and renders thepronoun referential. Hence, condition (29) is sensitive to the distinctionbetween Interpretable and Uninterpretable features.

3. Reuland & Reinhart (1995: 255ff.) argue that if there is a Case distinction betweenhe/himthen Case is fully specified. Sinceheselfis impossible, anaphors in English lack the distinctionfor Case and that enables them to function anaphorically.

4. I will not go into all the details of the Chain-Condition. For instance, even though Germanhas inherent Case in (24), the third personφ-features renderihr pronominal, but notmich ormir in (i) and (ii):

(i) Ich wasche michI wash me-

‘I wash myself.’(ii) Ich wasche mir die Hände

I wash me- the hands-

‘I wash my hands.’

This is similar to the case of Dutch that I discuss in 2.5.1.

INTRODUCTION 17

There are two related issues about (29) that neither Reinhart and Reuland(1993) nor Reuland & Reinhart (1995) address: (a) what role inherent Case,i.e. an Interpretable feature, plays in the interpretation so as to make anelement non-referential, and (b) what role structural Case, i.e. a Uninterpret-able feature, plays in making an element referential. One could argue that theunspecified or Uninterpretable features of the object in (17) are checked onthe verb (through movement to an FC) before LF but make the predicate‘reflexive’ at LF. The relations between the subject and object with Interpret-able features in (23) are ‘calculated’ at LF and hence do not obey the ChainCondition. Thus, pronouns with Interpretable features can be either referen-tial or reflexive and the interpretation of an Old English pronoun can bereflexive, as in (30), or referential, as in (31):

(30) Beowulf 1799Restehine þa rumheortrested him- the big-hearted one‘The big-hearted one rested himself.’

(31) Beowulf 447gif mec deað nimeðif me- death takes‘If death seizes me.’

Koster (1993) reformulates the notion of governing category in Minimalistterms and crucially uses Case checking. He argues that morphologicallymarked anaphors are strong and must be checked with Agr(eement) (assum-ing a split IP as in (32), which Chomsky 1995 no longer does). Languagesdiffer as to where the feature is located. If it occurs with AgrS, the positionresponsible for subject agreement, as in German (and Slavic), non-argumentpronouns cannot function as anaphors; if it occurs with AgrO, the positionresponsible for object agreement, as in English, non-argument pronounsfunction anaphorically. Thus, in (24), the reflexive is in the domain of AgrSand checks its feature; in (23), it is not and a pronoun appears. The anaphorin (17) is in the domain of AgrO and checks its structural Case there. Sinceinherent (or oblique) Case is not checked in Agr, obliquely marked pronounscan function anaphorically:

18 INTRODUCTION

(32) AgrSP

AgrOP

Agr′

AgrO′

AgrS

AgrO

...

VP

Adjunct... neben ihr/next to her

Thus, both Reinhart & Reuland and Koster argue that domains can vary interms of whether or not adjuncts are included and that inherent Case markingenables a pronoun to serve as an anaphor. Since the presence of inherentCase varies from language to language, pronouns function anaphorically insome but not in other languages.

Another approach to Binding is provided by Burzio (1996). He arguesthat the antecedent is important5 and that anaphora is a kind of agreementbetween the anaphor and the Subject/Inflection complex. If verbal agreementis strong (as in many Indo-European languages), pronominal reflexives areless likely than if it is weak (as in East Asian languages). However, agree-ment in languages such as Modern English, with no pronominal reflexives,is weaker than in Old English (see Chapter 4 below), a language withpronominal reflexives. Hence, this cannot be correct.

Burzio also makes a claim that is possibly relevant to the person splitfound in Old and Middle English. He argues that, in Italian, “[c]ertainreflexives … are morphologically invariant for all gender, number, andperson, a fact which [he] interpret[s] as actual lack of morphological features… If correct, this means that these reflexives cannot truly agree with theirantecedents … but can only ‘pseudo’ agree, in the sense of not bearingdistinct features” (pp. 4–5):

5. There are others that focus on the antecedent as well: for example, Authier & Reed (1997)show that whether or not the antecedent is a quantifier has consequences for binding. I will notbe concerned with such instances here.

INTRODUCTION 19

(33) Ioi parlo di *sei/mei.I talk about self/me‘I talk about myself.’ (Burzio 1996: 4)

In (33), se is partly specified and is not allowed in Italian, probably becausethe first person features are stronger in Burzio’s terms (however,me-stesso‘myself’ is also allowed (Burzio 1996: 6)). So, as in Reinhart & Reuland (notcited in Burzio), the features of the reflexive play a role.

The person split could be accounted for in structural terms as well,assuming that first and second person pronouns check their features indifferent FCs, as in Rice & Saxon (1995) and Ritter (1995). For instance,one might argue that first and second person pronouns are checked as in (34)but that third person ones, as in (35), need not be. I will not entertain thesestructures for Old and Middle English because (a) there is no person split inOld or Modern English, and (b) there is no structural evidence for such FCsin Middle English (cf. van Gelderen 1993):

(34) PsP

Ps′

Ps IP

I

I ′

You

VP

Vsaw

V′

NPyou

20 INTRODUCTION

(35) IP

I

I ′

She

VP

Vsaw

V′

NPher

In short, I will use (29) extensively in Chapters 1 and 2 to explain thebehavior of reflexives. I argue that it explains the facts in Modern Englishand that Reinhart & Reuland’s additional Condition on Predicates is notnecessary. Chapters 3 to 6 provide support for using the Chain Condition.

0.3 Old English morphology and inherent case

In this section, I list the basic pronominal paradigm since this will be helpfulin the chapters that follow. Partly on the basis of the morphological richnessof this paradigm and the thematically predictable nature of the (object) Casesin sentences such as (31) to (40) below, I argue in Chapter 5 that (object)Case is inherent. There are also other arguments, namely lack of verbalpassives, and exceptional Case marking. First, however, a brief note on thestatus of pronouns in Old and Middle English.

Pronouns in Old English act like clitics in that they occupy fixedpositions in the sentence (more in 2.5.1), as has been argued by Traugott(1972) and van Kemenade (1987). For instance, in (36) to (40) below, objectpronouns are fronted. My focus, in this book, will be on the feature contentof pronouns rather than on their position in the sentence. I argue that eventhough first, second and third person pronouns all occupy clitic positions,their internal structure is different. Since I do not focus on their position, Icontinue to refer to these elements as pronouns. The same is true for thedistinction between weak and strong pronouns (cf. also 2.5.1). For instance,in Dutch and Middle English, first and second person weak pronouns actpositionally like third person ones but differ in terms of feature content.

INTRODUCTION 21

Campbell (1959: 288–9) lists the basic Old English pronominal paradigmas one wheremeandþeare used for dative and accusative even though sometexts are said to have a distinct accusative form. Quirk & Wrenn (1957: 38)also list the basic paradigm without special forms for first and second personaccusative but note that “[e]arly texts sometimes have distinctive a.sg. formsfor the 1st and 2nd pers”. The paradigm given below lists separate forms forfirst and second person accusative since they are quite frequent in texts suchasBeowulf, Vespasian PsalterandThe Lindisfarne Gospels.

Individual texts vary a great deal both in forms and in orthography,especially for third person pronouns (e.g.hiene, hie, hio, hiere, hyne, hym,hyreandhy). Gericke & Greul (1934: 85ff.) comment on dialect differencesregarding these pronouns. In general, if variants exist, I use single quotationmarks around the word, e.g. ‘him’ forhem, him, hymwhen referring to thethird person dative pronoun:

Table 0.1.Old English pronouns

Singular Dual Plural

First

icminmemec

witunceruncuncet

weureususic

Second

þuþinþeþec

gitincerincincit

geeowereoweowic

Third(M/F/N)

he/heo/hithis/hire/hishim/hire/himhine/heo/hit

––––

hihirahimhi

Instances of some of these inBeowulfare (31) above, (36) to (40), wheremec, þec and hine are accusatives, dependent onniman ‘take’ in (31),oferswyðan‘overpower’ in (36), andteodan‘prepare’ in (40);ic, þu, hio andhi are nominatives; andeowandusare datives, dependent onwisian ‘show’in (37), and a benefactive connected tobe god‘be good’ in (38). Full nounsare also marked, e.g. as in (39), through an-e ending for the dative:

22 INTRODUCTION

(36) Beowulf 1768þætðec dryhtguma deaþ oferswiþeþthat you- mighty-ruler death overpowers‘that death overpowers you, mighty ruler.’

(37) Beowulf 292Ic eow wisigeI- you- show‘I will lead you.’

(38) Beowulf 269Wesþu us larena godbe you- us- teaching- good‘Give us good counsel.’

(39) Beowulf 623–4þæthio Beowulfe … / … medoful ætbærthat she- Beowulf- meadcup brought‘that she brought Beowulf the meadcup.’

(40) Beowulf 43Nalæs hi hine læssan lacum teodanno-less they- him- less gifts-. prepared‘They made him no fewer gifts.’

Table 0.1 shows that there is a difference between the nominative forms andthe others, especially in the first person and the second person non-singular(ic vsm-; wevs u-; geversuseow-). This is a remnant of the Indo-Europeansplit between active and non-active which is later reanalyzed as a Case split:nominative against the others (cf. Lehmann 1993). The third person developslate and a demonstrative is used (cf. Beekes 1990: 250). Hence, no suppletionoccurs in the third person paradigm.

0.4 The structure of pronouns

Since Abney (1987), it has been assumed that the structure of a phrase suchas the houseis a D(eterminer)P, as in (41):

INTRODUCTION 23

(41) DP

Dthe

NPNhouse

An advantage of this structure over the traditional NP, as in (42), is that theheadtheheads its own phrase in (41), just like the headhousedoes, and thatthe headthedoes not occupy the position of a maximal projection:

(42) NP

the NNhouse

¢

The D head expresses in/definiteness and is considered an FC, on a par withthe I position, as in (10) above. The DP has been split into many other FCs,e.g. a Num(ber)P (cf. Ritter 1995), an n(oun)P (Bejar 1999), and a P(er)s(on)P.There is also evidence that indefinite and definite NPs have different struc-tures (e.g. Zamparelli 1995). I abstract away from these splits and use DP.

Modern English pronouns are generally considered DPs but it is undecid-ed whether the pronoun is base generated in D or if it moves to D. Thereason it is argued to occupy D is that other Ds cannot co-occur withpronouns, e.g. *the he, *her she, and *that me. In older versions of English,this is not so clear. Mustanoja (1960: 120) gives examples ofþe he‘the he’and Wood (p.c) finds examples in Early Middle English ofsum heo‘somethey’. The status of articles is not clear either and they occur much lessfrequently than in Modern English (e.g. Traugott 1972: 85–7). Thus, theevidence for the presence of a D(P) is not as straightforward for Old English.This is not special to Old English. Kornfilt (1991) argues that Old Turkishlacks a D and Philippi (1997) argues that indefinites do not have a DP inEarly Germanic.

The position of adjectives is controversial as well: should the adjectiveappear in SpecNP or as a separate FC? In Old English (and Modern German,Dutch, Swedish, to name but a few), adjectives have either definite orindefinite endings depending on whether or not they are preceded by no

24 INTRODUCTION

article or a definite one. The structure could therefore be as in (43), with theadjective moving to D if there is no article or if the article is indefinite:

(43) DP

D NP

A

ercegrimnefi

N

attackgripe

‘the fierce attack’ (Beowulf, l. 1148)

In the case of a definite NP such asse grimma gæst‘the fierce spirit’(Beowulf l. 102), this movement does not take place and the adjective has anindefinite ending. Most of the time (in e.g.Beowulf), the adjective occurswithout noun and it has been argued that the indefinite inflection is anominal inflection (see Curme 1905). When there is more than one adjective,only the first has a definite ending (Spamer 1979: 245). This fits with (43)because there is only one D position where definiteness can be checked.

In this section, I have indicated a number of questions about the statusof the DP. Is the DP universally present (as in Progovac 1998) or does ithave to be activated by the language learner on the basis of language data?Does the pronoun move to D or is it base generated there? In this book, Iassume that there is some representation of definiteness in Old English,probably as D, as in (43). However, I will argue that pronouns are notalways DPs, for instance, first and second person Old English ones are not.

0.5 Justification of the texts used and outline of the book

I have selected the texts used in this book by looking through a variety oftexts representing different time, dialect area, and text type. In addition, Ihave searched the Helsinki Corpus (Kytö & Rissanen 1988) for texts with‘interesting’ instances of reflexives. With some texts, I have examined andlisted every possible reflexive, but doing that for all texts would have beentoo time and space-consuming. I have used the computer-readable versionsof Beowulf, The Vespasian Psalter, The Junius Manuscript, The Exeter Book,

INTRODUCTION 25

The Lindisfarne Gospels, The Rushworth Glossesand works by Alfred andÆlfric. Please see Appendix A for a description of the texts and the standardeditions. The computerized editions are readily available from the OxfordText Archive and Dictionary of Old English Project (Toronto). I have usedTACT as a Concordance builder. Middle English material is less readilyavailable in computerized form. I have used the computerized versions ofLayamon’sBrut (both Caligula and Otho),Gawain and the Green Knight, andChaucer’s entire works. I have also examined texts from the Katherine Group(with the help of the Penn-Helsinki annotated computer version),TheYorkPlays(with the help of Kinneavy’s Concordance) andCursor Mundi. For EarlyModern English texts, I have relied onThe Paston Lettersand the First FolioEdition of Shakespeare’s works (both available from Oxford Text Archive).On occasion, where relevant, I have used additional examples from othertexts which I did not systematically examine for all aspects dealt with here.

The outline of the book is as follows: In Chapter 1, I describe thereflexive constructions in Old English where the vast majority of reflexiveelements are simple pronouns. According to the Chain Condition (cf. (29)above), this is not surprising since Old English has a system of inherentCase. In Middle English, described in Chapter 2, the situation changes anda special reflexive is introduced, especially with third person pronouns. Iargue that changes in the Case, person and number features are responsiblefor this. If Case becomes structural, it is checked in an FC, which becomeactivated in Early Middle English independently. This is one step in thedirection of becoming an analytic language. The first and second personfeatures become un(der)specified or weak (e.g. phonologically), whichenables first and second person pronouns, such as ‘me’ and ‘thee’, tocontinue to be used reflexively (in accordance with the Chain Condition).The specially marked pronoun (e.g. ‘himself’) is first introduced outside thedirect domain of the verb and with third person pronouns. I argue that dueto the loss of overt Case marking, the adjectival ‘self’ is changed into thehead of the complex pronoun. Once ‘self’ is the head, the complex form, i.e.‘himself’, can function reflexively since it has no features of its own (likeYiddish zikh).

Chapters 3 to 6 provide support for the claims in Chapters 1 and 2. InChapter 3, I argue that the underspecification of certain person features canalso be seen in the lack of pro-drop with those persons: less pro-drop withfirst and second than with third. This means the verbal agreement features

26 INTRODUCTION

cease to license an empty subject, another step toward an analytic language.In Chapter 4, the underspecification is examined with respect to agreementon the verb: again less agreement with first and second than with thirdperson. Chapters 5 and 6 show that Old English has a system of inherentCase which is first lost in first and second person. This can be seen from themorphology as well as from certain constructions, such as passives andimpersonals (discussed in Chapter 6), that show a person split. Third personinherent Case is the last to be lost.

C 1

Old English reflexives

In Old English, as is well-known, simple pronouns function reflexively. Thissituation is described in detail in this chapter. Since, later in English, ‘self’forms become used as reflexives, where and how the forerunner of this ‘self’appears is also studied. Already in Old English, some peculiar characteristicsemerge as to position and form of ‘self’ and the pronoun it is connected to.Thus, the focus is on two issues: the occurrence of simple pronouns asreflexives, and the use of emphatic ‘self’, assumed to be the precursor of thelater special reflexive.

The reason simple pronouns can be used reflexively in Old and EarlyMiddle English will be explained extending Reinhart & Reuland’s (1993)Chain Condition to these languages. Reinhart & Reuland argue that pronounscan function reflexively if they are not fully marked for Case or person/number. The fact that Old English pronouns have inherent Case (cf. Chap-ter 5), thus, accounts for the fact that they can be used reflexively. InModern English, this use is illicit because both the Case andφ-features arefully specified structurally (and Uninterpretable).

The emphatic use of ‘self’ is interesting in that in Old English it is anadjective but later it becomes a noun. In some texts, the inflection differsdepending on the person of the pronoun it modifies. First, the definiteinflection disappears and then the indefinite. There are already a fewinstances where ‘self’ is modifying a reflexively used simple pronoun. Thelatter is often in direct or prepositional object position (problematic for Farr’s1905 and Keenan’s 1994 explanations, as well as for pragmatic explanationssuch as König & Siemund 1999 etc). In Late Old English, there is a (slight)split in that emphatic ‘self’ modifies more third than first person objects.This is the start of what happens in Middle English, and is not unexpectedsince third person pronouns stop differentiating morphological Case.

28 A HISTORY OF ENGLISH REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS

In 0.2 of the introductory chapter, theoretical notions relevant to reflex-ives are outlined. In 1.1 of the present chapter, I provide some generalbackground on reflexives in Old English before examiningBeowulfin greatdetail in 1.2. In 1.3, I discussThe Junius ManuscriptandThe Exeter Bookand in 1.4 works by Alfred and Ælfric. In 1.5, I address dialect differencesin such works asThe Vespasian Psalter, The Lindisfarne Gospels, The Rush-worth GlossesandThe West Saxon Gospelsand in 1.6, I present an analysisof the differences and changes where reflexives are concerned. A completeanalysis will not be given until the next chapter (Section 2.5), however.

1.1 General situation

In the literature on Old English, there is often a debate on how to definereflexives and reflexive verbs. Mitchell (1985, I, 438ff.) defines reflexiveverbs as “those found with a reflexive object … in the accusative, genitive,and dative”. Some verbs only occur with a reflexive object, and some arereflexive but occur without an object. Verbs that only have a reflexive objectcan start to take non-reflexive objects as well, and reflexive objects candisappear while the verb retains the ‘reflexive’ meaning. I focus on verbswhere the reflexive object is expressed.

In Indo-European, a reflexive is used for all persons (cf. Hermodsson1952; Ogura 1989: 2ff.). Its reconstructed form, indicated by ‘*’, is *s(w).In Germanic, this becomes *sik ‘self-’ (as it still is in, for instance,Modern Yiddish) and *sis ‘self-’. Its use in Modern German is reducedto the third person reflexivesich, for both accusative and dative (cf. e.g.Rose 1976). In Scandinavian, the reflexive pronoun becomes a verbalinflection, indicating intransitive passivity. In other Germanic languages, aspecial reflexive disappears (cf. Faltz 1985: 210ff, 1989). This is thesituation in Old Saxon, and in Old and Early Middle English, where aregular pronoun (indicated in bold) is used reflexively1 as in (1):

1. In fact, Old English also displays a number of detransitivizing strategies, as Beckman(1878) and Mustanoja (1960: 154ff) argue. Where other languages would have reflexives,English has an intransitive, e.g.to complain, to remember, to rejoice.

OLD ENGLISH REFLEXIVES 29

(1) Beowulf, 677–8No icme an herewæsmun hnagran taligenot I me in prowess smaller considerguþgeweorca, þonne Grendel hinewar-deeds than Grendel himself‘By no means do I consider myself smaller in prowess and wardeedsthan Grendel does himself.’

Hopper (1975: 37–8) has argued that third person pronouns that are not usedreflexively occur in positions different from those that are used reflexively:“the reflexive hine is placed immediately before the rest of the verbalcomplex, while the personal pronoun occurs towards the head [i.e. begin-ning] of the clause with the other pronouns” (p. 37). First and second person,because they never cause semantic confusion, are not distinguished this way,according to Hopper. Looking through the examples fromBeowulf listed in1.2 below, this generalization is certainly not correct. For instance, in (18)and (28), the reflexiveshine and him occur quite far removed from theverbal complex. Since many sentences, such as (16), (17), (19), (21), (26),and (27), are Verb-initial constructions, the reflexive could be situated at thebeginning in order to be in close proximity to the verb, but it could also bethe case that reflexive as well as personal pronouns occur in that position.

I will therefore assume that the position of the pronoun does not dis-ambiguate it and that Old English used simple pronouns reflexively evenwhen this resulted in ambiguous situations. In 2.5, I indicate that eventhough in Modern Dutch and French, phonologically weak pronouns functionreflexively, the Old English third person was not weak because it participat-ed in alliteration. So, neither position nor phonology disambiguates.

Subsequent to Old English, the pronoun is ‘reinforced’ withself, whichalready occurs in Old English in the form of an emphatic pronoun.2 The

2. In the English grammatical tradition, the Modern English counterpart is called an emphaticpronoun (cf. e.g. Quirk et al 1985: 360–1). Campbell (1959: 292), however, lists Old Englishselfas a demonstrative pronoun but devotes only one line to it: “[it] declines strong and weak”.This characteristic would make it more an adjective. Quirk & Wrenn (1957) make no mentionof the form. In Dutch and German, similar forms (zelfandselbst) can be found. According toANS (the standard Dutch grammar, p. 225), this form is a demonstrative pronoun used asadjective. In Dutch, unlike OE,selfdoes not inflect and hence the designation as demonstrativeis not strange.


OED says that “many scholars regard the word as a compound of thepronominal stemse-”. I will not go into the history ofself. According toVisser (1963: 420), in Early Old English, “selfcould be added to the personalpronoun in the nominative” (cf. (2)). “Early, too, was the use of pronoun +self after prepositions” (cf. (3)); “[i]t seems, however, to have taken sometime beforeselfwas added to the reflexive pronounsme(c), þe, eow, us, him,hie, hine, etc” (cf. (4)); “[t]hey do not occur in e.g. Beowulf, Cædmon’sHymn, Genesis, Exodus, Christ & Satan, Deor, Juliana”. Visser (1963: 420)mentions that by the time of King Alfred, the reflexive is often followed by‘self’. This view is taken over in Mitchell (1985: I: 189–90):

(2) Beowulf, 953þu þe self hafest … gefremedyou- you- self- have-2 furthered‘You yourself have furthered yourself.’

(3) Genesis, 2628heht hie bringan to him selfumcommanded her-. bring to himself-

‘ordered (them) to bring her to himself.’

(4) Ælfric’s Homilies II, 250, 15Judas hine sylfne ahengJudas himself- hanged‘Judas hanged himself.’ (Visser 1963: 423)

However, as I will show below, the use of ‘self’ added to a reflexiveaccusative pronoun is perhaps earlier than Visser states.

In Old English,self is an adjective and it is inflected as other adjectives,e.g.selfum, selfne. This means that it has to occur in the same local domainas the element it modifies. In many Germanic languages, Old Englishincluded, strong or indefinite inflection “was that of general use. It is foundwhen the adjective is predicative … and when no attempt is being made tospecify and particularize the item modified” (Quirk & Wrenn 1957: 68). It isused when the noun the adjective modifies is not accompanied by a definitearticle.3 Weak or definite inflection is used when the noun is accompanied

3. It is unclear whether or not Old English forms such asseandþoneare definite articles ordemonstratives.


by a definite article. I will use the terms ‘definite’ and ‘indefinite’ here.‘Self’ is morphologically independent, i.e. never written as a compound intheBeowulfmanuscript and sometimes not contiguous to the pronoun, as in(2) above. It generally has indefinite marking. For instance, in (4), the-neending is accusative masculine indefinite. Thus, ‘self’ usually has a strong orindefinite inflection (cf. Farr 1905). Mitchell (1985: I: 188) agrees: “self isused as an adjective and as a pronoun … As an adjective, it is declinedstrong or weak according to the usual rules. As a pronoun, it is usuallydeclined strong”. The examples of the latter use he provides are fromÆlfric’sHomilies, namelymesylfne,andus sylfum. The-neending is masculinenominative indefinite; the-um ending is dative singular or plural indefinite(cf. Quirk & Wrenn 1957: 31, 33). As I show below, inBeowulf, when ‘self’modifies first or second person pronouns, it has indefinite inflection, whereaswhen it modifies a third person pronoun (whether overt or empty), it hasdefinite inflection. I provide both declensions for ease of reference:

Table 1.1.Adjectival inflection of ‘self ’

Indefinite Singular Plural

selfselfesselfumselfne

selfuselfreselfreselfe

selfselfesselfumself

selfeselfraselfumselfe

selfaselfraselfumselfa

selfuselfraselfumselfu

Definite Singular Plural

selfaselfanselfanselfan

selfeselfanselfanselfan

selfeselfanselfanselfe

selfanselfraselfumselfan



In Middle English, this paradigm changes and, as Mustanoja (1960: 276)writes, indefinite and definite are often confused. By the beginning of the13th century, the endings are much reduced. In Old English, however, thereis no such confusion or reduction.

The structure for appositives that I assume for emphatic ‘self’ (I am not


aware of another structural representation of apposition) is as in (5), astructure for (39) below. As mentioned in 0.4, I assume there is somerepresentation of definiteness (here represented as D, but not much hinges onthe label) in OE. For the moment, I ignore what the structure of a pronounis (but see 2.5). The number and gender features in the appositive DP mirrorthose of the modified DP. Thus,sylf is nominative singular masculinebecausese hearde‘the brave (one)’ is.Sylf moves to D to check thesefeatures and definiteness:

(5) DP DP

Dse

DNPNhearde

NP

APsylf

N–

...

‘the brave one himself’

As for why ‘self’ appears, Mitchell (1979: 44; also in 1985), based on Farr(1905), says the following: “[n]ominative forms ofselfare often found afterthe dative of a personal pronoun. Such combinations are, of course, thesource of some uses of MnE ‘himself’, ‘herself’, and ‘themselves’”. Keenan(1994: 16ff.) also assumes Farr’s theory and gives instances such as (6).‘Self’ originally modifies the nominative subject but since the reflexivesimple pronoun precedes it, ‘self’ and the reflexive are seen as one word:

(6) Bede 208.14þæt he him seolf ær getimbradethat hehim- self- built‘that he himself earlier had built for himself.’

One of the problems with this explanation is that it does not account for whythis would happen only (or mainly) with third person, and why ‘self’ oftenoccurs after a prepositional object. However, patterns such as (6) may be acontributing factor to the development of the reflexive.

Thus, the literature traditionally pays attention to the inflection of ‘self’and to its introduction as reflexive pronoun. In what follows, I focus on theseas well as on the simple pronoun used reflexively.


1.2 Beowulf

In this section, I provide a detailed study of reflexive and emphatic pronounsin Beowulf. The manuscript in whichBeowulfappears is West Saxon fromc.1000 but the original is said to be Northumbrian from the 8th century (cf.Bjork & Obermeier 1997). A facsimile is available (Zupitza 1959), but myreferences and line divisions are from Klaeber (1922). In 1.2.1, I show thatthe reflexive construction involves the simple pronoun and, in 1.2.2, thatconstructions with ‘self’ are emphatic. I also discuss the different endings ofthe emphatic and show that it is an adjective in keeping with its emphatic,i.e. modifying, character. I use the term ‘emphatic’ since it is used mostcommonly in the literature, but ‘intensifier’ or ‘focus marker’ might also beappropriate (see König & Siemund 1999).

In this book, I pay no attention to how ‘self’ is spelled since there is norelationship between orthography and reflexive function. InBeowulf, forinstance, the choice betweenself andsylf is determined by the scribe, sincethe former forms occur before line 2150, attributed to scribe A, and the latterforms, attributed to scribe B, occur after line 2150.

1.2.1 Simple pronouns used as reflexives

I examine first and second person simple pronouns before turning to thirdperson ones. There is a total of 55mes in Beowulfand 6 of these would bemyselfin Modern English. They are listed in (1) above, repeated here as (7),and (8) to (12). Two pronouns function as direct objects, i.e. (7) and (12);the others are indirect or prepositional objects. There are 16 accusativemecs,and none would bemyself. Statistically, the difference betweenmeandmecused reflexively is not significant, due to the small number of instances ofmec. However,mec, the special accusative, probably does not functionreflexively since it is becoming extinct (cf. Chapter 5):

(7) Beo 677–8No icme an herewæsmun hnagran taligenot I me on prowess smaller thinkguþgeweorca, þonne Grendel hinewardeeds than Grendel him‘By no means do I consider myself smaller in prowess and wardeedsthan Grendel does himself.’


(8) Beo 932þæt ic ænigrame weana ne wendethat I any me- hope not expected‘that I didn’t expect any hope for myself.’

(9) Beo 1490–1Ic me mid HruntingeI mewith Hruntingdom gewyrce oþðe mec deað nimeðglory will-bring-about until me- death takes‘With Hrunting, I will win glory for myself or death will take me.’

(10) Beo 1772–3þæt icme ænigne / under swegles begong gesacan ne tealdethat I me- any under heaven’s district opponent not consider‘that I no longer considered anyone my opponent.’

(11) Beo 2523–4forðon icme on hafu / bord ond byrnantherefore I me- on have shield and coat-of-mail‘therefore I shall have on me a shield and a coat of arms.’

(12) Beo 2736–8Ic on earde bad / … neme swor felaI on earth was-around … not me- swore wrong‘I was around on earth … I never perjured myself.’

Of the 17 first person plural forms (13 instances ofus and 4 ofusic), noneare reflexive and of the 44 instances of second person singularþe and 8 ofþec in Bessinger & Smith’s (1969)Concordance to Beowulf, 2 are reflexive,as in (13) and (14). Of the 6 instances of second person pluraleow, none arepossible reflexives; there are also 2 second personeowics, but they are notreflexive. There is 1 instance of a first person reflexive dual, as in (15), outof a total of 6 such forms:

(13) Beo 1722Þu þe lær be þonyou- you- learn by that‘Learn from this.’


(14) Beo 1759–60ondþe þæt selre geceos / ece rædasand you- that better choose perpetual wisdom‘and seek for yourself a better more lasting wisdom.’

(15) Beo 540Wit unc wið hronfixas / werian þohtonwe-.1. us-.1. against whales defend thought‘We intended to defend ourselves against the whales.’

The functions of these reflexively used pronouns are benefactive object in(13) and (14), and direct object in (15).

With respect to third person pronouns, as will be shown in a laterchapter, there are 200hims; 1 hym; 44 hines; 30 hynes.4 Some of thesefulfill more than one function. Thushim can be masculine singular, neutersingular dative, and plural dative, but the numbers of neuter and plural aresmall (2 and 32 respectively). There are 5 accusative pluralhies, 1hig and3 hys, and one of the latter is reflexive, namely (20). The number of femi-nine pronouns is small: 30 feminine nominatives (17heo, 11hio, and 1 hie),7 dative forms (hyre/hire), and one reflexive, namely (29) below.

The third person pronouns used reflexively are listed below from (16) to(22) (cf. also Hermodsson 1952: 193–4 who lists 12 instances of reflexiveverbs). The preferred form for a reflexive direct object ishine/hyne. Thus,unlike with first and second person forms, the third person accusative (hine)form is used reflexively:

(16) Beo 142Heoldhyne syðþan / fyr ond fæstor, se þæm feonde ætwandheld him since far and secure who that- enemy escaped‘Whoever escaped that enemy held himself far and secure away.’

(17) Beo 688Hylde hine þa heaþodeorbent-down him the battle-brave‘The brave one bent down to rest.’

4. Note that Bessinger & Smith (1969) have 201hims; 1hym, 44 hines and 30hynes. They,following Klaeber, assumehine in line 963, whereas the manuscript clearly hashim, asZupitza’s facsimile shows.


(18) Beo 1472syðþan hehine to guðe gegyred hæfdebecause he him to battle girded had‘because he had made himself ready for battle.’

(19) Beo 1799Restehine þa rumheortrested him the big-heart‘The big-hearted one rested himself.’

(20) Beo 2592þæt ða aglæcan hy eft gemettonthat the fierce-enemies them again met‘that the fierce enemies met each other again.’

(21) Beo 2593Hyrte hyne hordweardrefreshed him treasure-guardian‘The guardian of the treasure strengthened himself.’

(22) Beo 2976ac hehyne gewyrptebut he him recovered‘but he recovered himself.’

When the verb assigns a dative Case to its object,him is used and can beused reflexively as in (23) and (24) (taken from Visser 1963: 421):

(23) Beo 1746him bebeorgan ne conhim hide not can‘He could not hide himself.’

(24) Beo 1836Gif him þonne Hreþric to hofum Geata geþingeðif him then Hrethric to court Geats decides‘If Hrethric then decides to go to the court of the Geats.’

When the function of the reflexive pronoun is less argumental, i.e. not adirect object, the dativehim is also used. These constructions are sometimescalled ethical or reflexive or beneficial datives, for instance, as in (25), (26),(27), (28), and (29), and they occur with verbs of motion as in (31). TheModern English counterparts of some verbs, such asondredan‘fear’ in (28)


and (29) andgewedian‘dress’, as in (30) and (32), has changed in losing thebenefactive argument. I have not listed all instances of the latter but haveincluded them in Table 1.2:5

(25) Beo 1272ondhim to anwaldan are gelyfdeand him to ruler’s help hoped‘and he hoped for himself to get the help of God.’

(26) Beo 198Het him yðlidanordered him make-ready‘He ordered to make it ready.’

(27) Beo 2062con him land geareknow him the land well‘He knows the land well.’

(28) Beo 2347No hehim þa sæcce ondrednot he him the battle dreaded‘He did not fear for himself.’

(29) þæt hiohyre (hearmda)gas hearde ondredethat she her- evil-days sorely feared‘that she feared the evil days very much.’

(30) Beo 26Him ða Scyld gewathim the Scyld made-ready‘The Scyld made himself ready’

(31) Beo 1880–2Him Beowulf þanan / guðrinc goldwlanc, græsmoldan trædhim Beowulf away warrior richly-adorned grassy-earth trod/ since hremig treasure proud‘Beowulf departed, a warrior richly adorned, and proudly trod thegrassy earth.’

5. Other instances ofgewedianoccur in lines 662, 1236, 1601, 1903, 1963, 2387, and 2949.


(32) Beo 234Gewat him þa to warodemade-ready him then to shore‘He made himself ready to (go to) shore.’

Table 1.2 summarizes the use of the simple dative and accusative pronoun(some of the data are from Klaeber’s glossary). It shows that except in thethird person, the accusative is not used reflexively and that reflexive use ofa pronoun is at most a tenth of the total usage:

Table 1.2.The use of dative/accusative pronouns in Beowulf

non-refl refl non-refl refl Total

11223M3F3N3

049013042006152006001032

0600020015010100

16 mec4 usic8 þec2 eowic68 hine–15 hit8 hi

00006–01

071017052008241007017041

Total 301 25 121 7 454

1.2.2 ‘Self ’

So far I have examined simple pronouns used reflexively. I now turn to‘self’, where I list most instances of the 35 forms of ‘self’. Many areadjectival (14), 1 is possibly reflexive, but most (20) are emphatic. Asexpected of emphatics, they modify nominatives rather than accusatives andfull NPs rather than pronouns. A good example is (33), whereselfmodifiesa full NP that is nominative. Sentence (34) is the only instance inBeowulfwhere a pronoun and an inflected form of ‘self’ is possibly used reflexively,but ‘self’ might also be used emphatically, as forms of ‘self’ generally are:

(33) Beo 1312–3æþele cempaself mid gesiðumnoble fighter self- with followers‘The noble fighter himself with his followers.’


(34) Beo 2875þæt he hyne sylfne gewræcthat he himself- avenged‘He avenged himself.’

Apart from (33), the emphatics that modify subjects are listed in (35) to (50).The ones that modify objects are listed in (51) to (54). Thus, 17 modify asubject, i.e. 49%, and 4 an object out of a total of 35 forms, i.e. 11%. Of the17 that modify a subject inBeowulf, 8 modify a full NP, but of the 4 thatmodify an object, none do. This means 23% of the ‘self’ forms inBeowulfmodify full NPs, whereas in, for instance, the Late Old EnglishPastoralCare, only 4% do. Therefore, the main function of ‘self’ inBeowulf is thatof an emphatic.

The data below also show that ‘self’ modifies third person singularpronouns (overt and covert) 9 times, third person plural and second singular2 times each. Considering there are 241 third person singular pronouns (seeTable 1.2), this means 3.7% are modified by ‘self’, whereas this is 4.9% forthird plural, and 3.8% for second singular. These differences are not signifi-cant and a person or number split is not present, in keeping with the emphat-ic nature of ‘self’:

(35) Beo 594swa þu self talastsuch you self tell-2‘as you yourself think.’

(36) Beo 920Swylceself cyningSuch self king‘The same … the king himself.’

(37) Beo 953–4Þu þe self hafast dædum gefremedyou- you- self- have-2 deeds- furtheredþæt þin [dom] lyfaðthat your might lives‘You yourself have furthered yourself through deeds so that yourreputation lives.’


(38) Beo 1010Wolde self cyning symbel þicganwanted self king feast consume‘The king himself wanted to eat.’

(39) Beo 1963–5Gewat him ða se hearde mid his hondscolemade-ready him then the brave with his groupsylf æfter sande sæwong tredan, wide waroðasself on the sandy seashore tread wide beach‘The brave one made himself ready with his followers to walk on thesandy shore along the wide beach.’

(40) Beo 2702–3Þa gen sylf cyning / geweold his gewittethen again self king controlled his mind‘Then the king was in control of himself again.’

(41) Beo 3067Seolfa ne cuðeself not knew‘He did not know himself (yet)’

(42) Beo 29swa heselfa bædas he self asked‘as he himself had asked’

(43) Beo 1468Selfa ne dorsteself not dared‘He did not dare himself’

(44) Beo 1733–4þæt he hisselfa ne mægthat he his own not mayfor his unsnyttrum ende geþenceanfor his follies limits know‘in order that he may not know his own limits because of his follies.’


(45) Beo 1839þæm þe himselfa deah6

that- that him self- is capable‘who himself is a capable person.’

(46) Beo 1923–4þær æt ham wunað /selfa mid gesiðumthere at home lives self with followers‘who himself lives there at home with his followers.’

(47) Beo 505þonne hesylfa‘than he himself’

(48) Beo 3054nefne godsylfa‘unless god himself.’

(49) Beo 419selfe ofersawon ða ic of searwum cwomself saw when I through skill came‘They themselves saw (me) when I returned skillfully.’

(50) Beo 1995–7þæt þu … / lete Suðdenesylfe geweorðan / gude wið Grendel‘that you will let the Danes themselves fight against Grendel.’

(51) Beo 961þæt þu hine selfne geseon mostethat you himself- see could‘that you could have seen him himself.’

(52) Beo 1604–5þæt hie heora winedrihten /selfne gesawonthat they their lord self- saw‘that they could see their lord himself.’

6. Note that the form of ‘self’ is nominative, though modifying a dative pronoun.


(53) Beo 1977–8Gesæt þa wiðsylfne se ða sæcce genæssat then with self- who that battle survivedmæg wið mægekinsman opposite kinsman‘Those who survived the battle sat with each other.’

(54) Beo 2875þæt he hyne sylfne gewræcthat he himself- avenged‘He avenged himself.’

In sentences such as (33) to (40) above, ‘self’ is marked for nominativemasculine singular of the indefinite declension (see Table 1.1 above). Theantecedents of indefinitely declined ‘self’ are all full NPs or second person(first person is not used together with ‘self’ inBeowulf). There are sevensuch occurrences. Eight times, the definite masculine singular form is usedas in (41) to (48). Except for (48), these are all third person singular overt orempty pronouns. The indefinite masculine plural is used in (49) and (50).There are also many (14) definite and indefinite genitives as in (55) to (59)below.7 In addition to (34) above, repeated as (54), the ones where ‘self’modifies an accusative are (51) to (53); only (54), however, is possiblyreflexive. Checking the manuscript,hyneand sylfneare written separatelyand nothing indicates that they form one reflexive. In (41) and (43), I amassuming pro-drop, but it is possible that these are subjects (as argued for inKeenan 1994 in later texts). It is interesting that these are all indefinite. Icome back to these observations in a later section.

For the sake of completeness, I list some ‘self’ forms used as adjectives,namely (55) to (59):

(55) Beo 698–700þæt hie feond heora / ðurh anes cræft ealle ofercomon,that they enemy their through one’s power all overcame,/ selfes mihtum same’s strength‘so that they all overcame their enemy through one man’s power andmight.’

7. The other genitives can be found in ll. 2013, 2148, 2222, 2325, 2360, 2639, 2710, 2776, 3013.


(56) Beo 894–5þæt he beahhordes brucan moste /selfes domethat he ring-hord use could self’s judgement‘that, according to his own judgement, he could take the ring-hord.’

(57) Beo 1147æt hisselfes ham‘at his own home.’

(58) Beo 1115hire selfre sunu‘her own son.’

(59) Beo 2040ond hyrasylfra feorh‘and their own people.’

In conclusion toBeowulf, simple pronouns are used reflexively in allpositions and functions. If Old English pronouns have inherent Case, this ispredicted by Reinhart & Reuland’s Chain Condition: they are underspecifiedfor Case and can form a chain with a referential NP. There is possibly onereflexive with ‘self’ shown in (34), repeated as (54), but typically ‘self’ isused emphatically and inflected as an adjective. Since there are only 21instances of ‘self’ modifying a (pro)noun, a person split would be hard todetect. There is, however, no real difference between third and secondperson singular, or between third person singular and plural. A second pointof interest is that with first and second persons, it is the dative form (meandþe rather thanmecandþec) that is used whereas with third person pronouns,it is the accusative form (hine). The dative form (him) is used for moreoptional, less argumental material. As mentioned above, this split mayindicate that the special accusative first and second person pronoun isdisappearing. A third aspect is the choice between definite (with thirdsingular nominative) and indefinite (elsewhere) inflection on ‘self’.

1.3 Junius and Exeter

The Junius MScomprisesGenesis, Exodus, Daniel, andChrist and Satanandis from around the year 1000, but parts are assumed to be from the 8thcentury (cf. Krapp 1931: xxvi). Simple pronouns are used reflexively but


‘self’ is possibly reflexive in three instances where it modifies a prepositionalobject, rather than a direct object as in (34) above fromBeowulf. In TheExeter Book, the situation is very similar except that reflexive pronounsreinforced by ‘self’ occur in direct object position. As will be discussed inChapter 5, another difference is that the second person special accusativeoccurs in Junius, whereas the specially marked first person one does inExeter. Exetercontains many parts, riddles, as well as religious material. Itis a collection by different authors and it not clear why they were compiledtogether in one manuscript (cf. Bradley 1982: 202).

1.3.1 Simple pronouns used as reflexives

The point to this section is to show that personal pronouns are used reflex-ively, as inBeowulf. In Beowulf, the special accusative third personhineseems to be the regular form, not the dative, but with first and secondpersons, the dative form is.

Looking at simple first person singular pronouns inJunius, at least 8 asin (60) and (61) are used reflexively out of 122me forms. Most of thesefunction as direct objects. With first person pluralus, there is one reflexivein the Modern English sense (out of a total of 49; possibly Genesis 407 isalso reflexive):

(60) Genesis 434–5Siððan icme sefte mæg / restanthen I me softly may rest

(61) Genesis 867Ic wreo me herI clothe me here

(62) Christ & Satan 100þæt weus gehydan mægonthat we us hide may

With second person singular, there are at least 5 of which (63) is an instance(I have not counted all instances). With second person plural, there is one asin (64) with an understood subject (out of a total of 16). With the dual firstperson, there is one as in (65) (total of 23, mainly inGenesis). Visser(1963: 425) mentions 4 with the dual second as in (66) and (67) (out of atotal of 13), but none of them have an overt subject:


(63) Genesis 2479þæt þu ðe aferige of þisse folcscearethat you you remove of this people‘that you leave this land.’

(64) Exodus 266Ne willaðeow andrædanNot shall you dread

(65) Genesis 801þæt witunc wite warian sceoldenthat we us- penalty guard should‘that we should guard ourselves.’

(66) Genesis 235–6ac niotaðinc þæs oðres ealles, forlætað þone ænne beam,but (you) eat you that other all, leave that one tree,/ wariað inc wið þone wæstm. beware you against that fruit‘But eat of all the other trees, except the one, beware of that fruit.’

(67) Genesis 2733Ne cearaincit duguðaNot care you (from your) people‘Care not to go from this land.’

With third person pronouns, Visser mentions 8 (p. 423), of which (68) and(69) are instances. I have not counted the total number:

(68) Genesis 261–2his engyl / ahofhine wið his hearran‘his angel lifted himself against his lord.’

(69) Genesis 1583–4hu se beornhine / reste on recede‘how the man himself rested in his home.’

The special accusative formmecoccurs only once and then in a non-reflex-ive context;þec occurs more frequently (24 times) but mainly inDaniel.None of these are reflexive (cf.Beowulf). The typical third person reflexiveis hineand nothim, again as inBeowulf.

In The Exeter Book, the simple pronoun remains used as a reflexive (I willnot list them here), both in the specially Case marked forms such asmecand


hine (as in (70) and (71)) and asmeandhim (unlike inBeowulfandJunius).The reason may be that the special accusatives are still ‘alive’ inExeter(especially the latter parts of the manuscript, cf. Chapter 5).Mec is usedreflexively only in theRiddles(i.e. the part wheremecis strong in general):

(70) Riddle 30a, 7Þonne icmec onhæbbeThen I me upraise‘when I raise myself up.’

(71) Christ 1165–6forþon he hine tredne him / ongean gyredetherefore it (the sea) it- tread it against girded‘It made itself firm to be trodden upon.’

To provide a sense for the frequency of reflexively used pronouns, I list thenumbers for the first person singular. There are 245 instance ofme, and 25are reflexive (3 of which are modified byselfum). This means the situationis not that different fromBeowulfandJunius, with around 10% reflexivelyused pronouns. The difference is in relation to the 161 instances ofmec, 3of which are reflexive. Reflexivemecis only used as direct object, butme isused as both direct and prepositional object, reflecting the respective use ofhineandhim in Beowulf.

1.3.2 ‘Self ’

In this subsection, it is shown that ‘self’ modifies a prepositional object inJunius, but a direct object inExeter. Considering the binding domainsmentioned in 0.2, the former is not expected if ‘self’ marks a reflexive.Hence, one could argue that ‘self’ is (still) an emphatic in these early texts.In Junius, this fact is also clear comparing the number of forms in ‘self’ thatmodify a nominative with those that modify an accusative or dative: 76 and10, or 88% and 12%, respectively. This is even lower thanBeowulf. Theratio in Exeter, however, is different, namely 66 and 28, or 70% and 30%.As mentioned,Exetermay not be an internally consistent text, however.

I will first give some examples. Visser (1963: 420) mentions 2 instancesof ‘self’ with a dative ending referring to a prepositional object in theJuniusMS. One is (3), repeated here as (72), and the other is (73). These are the


only 2 found but there are 4 other -umendings, as in (74) to (76); there arealso 4 -ne endings, as in (77) and (78), where the 2 not shown do not referto a pronoun. Only (77) is possibly reflexive:

(72) Genesis 2628heht hie bringan to him selfumordered her- bring to himself-

‘ordered (them) to bring her to himself.’

(73) Genesis 885–6Nu ic þæs tacen wege / sweotol on meselfumnow I the token carry evident on me myself

(74) Genesis 268–9Þuhte himsylfum / þæt he mægyn and cræft maran hæfde‘(It) seemed to him himself that he strength and power more had.’

(75) Genesis 585–7ic … gode þegnode … drihtneselfumI God- served lord- self-

(76) Genesis 2713–4Forþon ic þegnum þinum dyrnde / andsylfum þe‘Therefore I hid from your thanes and from you yourself …

(77) Genesis 438Sittan læte ic hine wið mesylfnesit let I him with me self-

‘I will let him sit with me.’

(78) Genesis 499þæt ic wið hine sylfne sætthat I with himself- sat‘that I was sitting with him himself’.

Apart from the 10 ‘self’ forms modifying an object, as in (72) to (78), theother forms of ‘self’ refer to subjects, in both indefinite and definite declen-sion: 10self; 5 seolf; 10 sylf; 19 selfa; 11 seolfa; 13 sylfa; 2 selua; 2 selfe;2 seolfe; 2 sylfe, and to adjectives (not listed).

The constructions are not substantially different from the ones inBeowulfand I will therefore not list them: except for subjects, most have theindefinite declension, indicating that they are still adjectives. In this text, thethird person singular forms do not exclusively have definite inflection as


they do inBeowulf. For instance, ‘self’ in (79) has a definite inflection eventhough the antecedent is the second person, and in (80), it has an indefiniteone even though it modifies a third person singular:

(79) Genesis 570hwylce þu selfa hæfstwhich you- self- have-2‘which you yourself have.’

(80) Genesis 2761swa he self gecwæðas he- self- says‘as he himself says.’

‘Self’ is used most often to modify third person singular pronouns (16 times),but considering the total numbers of pronouns, the difference betweenperson and number is not significant, as inBeowulf. It is not when ‘self’starts to be used as reflexive that the person (and number) split shows up.

Thus, the situation inJunius is similar to that inBeowulfand can besummarized as follows: Simple pronouns function reflexively but there arethree instances where ‘self’ is added to a pronoun when the latter is aprepositional reflexive object, probably for emphasis. The majority refers toa subject and this shows the function of ‘self’ is predominantly emphatic.

In The Exeter Book, ‘self’ is mostly emphatic, as in (81). There are 26instances ofsylf, 1 of self, 1 of selfe, 8 of sylfe, 30 of sylfa. These modifysubjects. Some of these are different in that an extra pronoun is used, as in(82), which is probably an ethical dative. There are also many instances,which I will not list here, where ‘self’ functions as an adjective. There is 1instance of a prepositional object reflexive,him selfumin (83), and 3 ofhinesylfneused reflexively, both in prepositional and direct object positions, in(84) to (86):

(81) Christ, 13ond se cyningsylfaand the king self-

‘And the king himself.’

(82) Guthlac 1092Ic me sylfum watI meself- knew‘I know that for myself …’


(83) Christ 1263–4Magon weana to fela / geseon on himselfum‘They may see many evils in themselves.’

(84) Christ 843–4he hinesylfne… / behydan mæge …‘he can hide himself.’

(85) Christ 1306–7hwæþer him mon soð þe lyge / gagað on hine sylfnewhether him man truth or lie tells about himself‘whether a man tells him the truth about himself or not.’

(86) Christ 1320ond hinesylfne þrean‘and correct himself.’

Cases of ‘self’ modifying first and second person reflexives also occur. They arelisted as (87) to (92). Apart from (92), they function as prepositional objects:

(87) Christ 107–8þu tida gehwane / ofsylfum þe symle inlihtesyou- hour each of self- you- continually lighten‘You by yourself enlighten every hour.’

(88) Seafarer 1Mæg ic be mesylfum soðgied wrecanCan I about me self truth utter‘I can tell a true story about myself.’

(89) Deor 35ic bi me sylfum secgan willeI about me self say want‘I want to say about myself.’

(90) Riddle 66.8–10eorþan gefylle … mid mec8 sylfumearth fill … with meself-

‘I fill the earth with myself.’

8. Both Krapp & Dobbie (1936) and Mackie (1934) mention thatmecoccurs in the manu-script. They have ‘corrected’ it tome in the edition.


(91) Resignation, 13–5þæt ic þe geþeo þinga gehwylce / ond on mesylfum / ræd arærethat I thee sight things do and on me self profit raise‘so that I may prosper in your sight and raise benefits for myself.’

(92) Juliana 46–7Ic þe mæg gesecgan þæt þu þec sylfne ne þearft /I thee can say that thou thee- self- not need swiþor swencanfurther torment‘I can say to you that you don’t need to torment yourself further.’

In conclusion, the possibly reflexive use of ‘self’ inJunius and Exeterdiffers in that in the latter manuscript ‘self’ can reinforce a reflexivepronoun in direct object as well as in prepositional object position. Anotherdifference is that the specially marked accusative (mec) can be used reflex-ively, presumably because it is still a regularly used form, unlike inBeowulf.

1.4 Alfred and Ælfric

By Late Old English, many changes are occurring; for instance, verbalagreement is disappearing and the special accusative Case for first andsecond person is lost. As mentioned in 1.1, Visser (1963: 421) says that bythe time of Alfred (9th century), the reflexive pronoun is often followed by‘self’, although Bock (1887: 14–5) says: “[a]ls Reflexivpron. wird meist dasPersonalpron. allein verwendet”. In this section, I provide instances ofreflexives with ‘self’ from both Alfred and Ælfric and argue (a) that theemphatic use of ‘self’ is less and the reflexive use more than inBeowulf, and(b) that third person is modified by ‘self’ more often than first or secondperson. The latter change sets the stage for the changes in Early MiddleEnglish, discussed in Chapter 2.

1.4.1 Simple pronoun versus ‘self ’ in Alfred

In this subsection, I show that even though simple pronouns continue to beused reflexively, pronouns modified by ‘self’ become more frequent. I firstindicate that the use of ‘self’ becomes less restricted.


The examples of reflexives with ‘self’ that Visser mentions (pp. 421–3)have inflected forms of ‘self’ and, unlike in earlier texts, they modify genitive,dative and accusative objects, as in (93) and (94). Wülfing (1894: 358), in histwo-volume syntax of Alfred’s works, also lists many reflexive ‘selfs’ withall kinds of endings, e.g. modifying an indirect object in (95):

(93) Pastoral Care, hence PC, 34.7mon forgit his selfes … he sceal hineman forgets his- self- … he must him-

selfne geðenceanself- remember‘man forgets himself … he must remember himself.’

(94) Orosius 166.23hiene selfne ofsloghim- self- killed‘he killed himself.’

(95) PC, 4.22ic þa sona eft me selfum andwyrdeI then soon meself- answered‘I soon answered myself.’

Even though the domain of ‘self’ increases, the simple pronoun remains usedreflexively for all persons and numbers, and for all positions, as in (96) to (98):

(96) PC, 409.33ðu ðin scamigeyou you- shame‘Be ashamed of yourself.’

(97) PC, 181.9Ne ondræd ðu ðenot fear thou thee‘Do not fear yourself.’

(98) Orosius 154.15hie namon heora fultum midhim‘they took their support with them.’

Keenan (1994: Appendix), examining part of the PC, concludes that in 33%of the direct objects (same for prepositional objects), the form is modified by‘self’. This is an increase from e.g.Beowulf. Wülfing (1894: 356) claims that


the simple pronoun is the preferred way of expressing the reflexive andprovides several pages of instances. The ratio of simple pronoun versuspronoun modified by ‘self’ will be discussed in 1.4.2. This will show that the‘self’ increasingly modifies a third person reflexive pronoun. Neither Keenannor Wülfing mention this.

The emphatic use of ‘self’ is very much alive. As mentioned in Sec-tion 1.2, ‘self’ is used less often as an emphatic in Alfred’s texts than inearlier ones: only 13 (=4%) out of a total of 314 ‘self’ forms in the PCmodify full nouns (as opposed to 23% inBeowulf), but 131 (=42%) out of314 still modify subjects (is 49% inBeowulf).

As to the morphological form, there are 61 instances ofself and 2 ofselfa. Both forms mainly emphasize a third person nominative singular. Thedefinite forms ofselfaare used only with a full noun. There is also a definiteselfan, used as an adjective.Selfeoccurs 80 times, mainly with third personnominative plural subjects, and there are 77selfnes, 76 selfums, 1 selfun(probably a misspelling), 9selfes, 2 selfres, and 5selfras. Hence, mostendings are indefinite (cf. Table 1.1).

1.4.2 A person difference

Examining all sentences with first person singularic as subject (202) inThePastoral Careshows that 2 have an emphatic ‘self’. Second person singularsubjectðu (125 instances) is never reinforced with an emphatic. With firstperson singular, there are 3 instances ofme with selfne/selfum, and withsecond person singular, 5 are formed with ‘self’. Thus, the use of ‘self’ bothas emphatic and with dative and accusative pronouns is quite limited in thePC. The majority modifies a third person: all 9selfesas in (93) do; 4 out of5 selfras. Out of 77selfnes, only 2 fail to occur withhine; out of 76 instanc-es ofselfum, 12 fail to modify him (one is listed as (95) above). However,there are many more third person pronouns in PC than first or second personones: more that 2000 instances ofhe, more than a 1000hie ‘they’, 659instances ofhi, but only 202 instances ofic, 390 ofwe, 125 ofðu and 284of ge. To judge the ratio of first person against third, I have added all firstperson nominative and dative/accusative pronouns together (makes 813) andall third person nominative, dative, and accusative ones (makes 5244). Thirdperson pronouns followed by ‘self’ constitute 4.9% of all third person


pronouns, whereas for first person ‘self’ this number is 1.1%. In a table,these figures are as follows and the difference is significant:

Table 1.3.First versus third person pronoun modified by ‘self ’ in PC

1/1 3/3 Total

no ‘self’‘self’

804009

49880256

57920265

Total 813 5244 6057

df 1, χ2 = 23.973,p< .001

If one looked just at the total numbers of accusative and dative forms, thepercentage of those modified by ‘self’ is even more pronounced. The percen-tage for first personme and us reinforced by ‘self’ against all dative andaccusative first persons is 2.7%, but for third person this is 14%. This meansthat ‘self’ is more common with third than with first person. This split wasnot that obvious in previous texts. The results are given in Table 1.4:

Table 1.4.First versus third person/ and ‘self ’ in PC

1/1 / 3/3 / Total


215006

09590158

11740164

Total 221 1117 1338

df 1, χ2 = 22.412,p< .001

In Tables 1.3 and 1.4, I have not taken into account the function (emphaticor reflexive) of the pronoun modified by ‘self’. However, the difference inthe percentages between the two sets of data indicates that with datives andaccusatives in Table 1.4, i.e. with possibly reflexive pronouns, the differencebetween first and third person is slightly more pronounced than when takinginto account all pronouns, as in Table 1.3, i.e. with reflexive as well asemphatic pronouns.

If one considers number, there are fewer plurals modified by ‘self’ thansingulars. In a table, these figures look as follows but their distribution is notstatistically significant:


Table 1.5.First person/ singular versus plural modified by ‘self ’ in PC

1 1 Total


6403

151003

215006

Total 67 154 221

df 1, χ2 = 1.131,p< .30

Alfred’s reflexive use of simple pronominals is the same as that in other OldEnglish texts but many more forms of ‘self’ serve as reinforcements ofreflexive pronouns (cf. also Wülfing’s 1901: 2–18 lists of reflexive verbs),with a third person preference. The inflection has changed to indefinite.Another indication that ‘him self’ is different (later on, I argue more gram-maticalized) than in earlier texts is that in 4 instances of third person, thecombination is listed as one form. The reason all involve third personhimmight also be that there are simply more instances of third person pronouns.

1.4.3 More changes

The late Old English works of Ælfric indicate that ‘self’ is regularly used toreinforce a reflexive pronoun in direct and prepositional object position. Ascompared to Alfred, ‘self’ modifies a full noun more often inHomilies II,namely 33 (=12%) out of a total of 277, and is thus more often an emphaticthan in Alfred (see also Table 2.1). The use of ‘self’ with subjects iscomparable, namely 129 out of 277 (=47%). Looking through the instancesin Ælfric’s Homilies, sylf is used with singular nominatives as in (99),sylfewith plural nominatives,sylfeswith genitives,sylfnewith accusatives andsylfumwith datives. Nominatives are usually emphatic, whereas accusativeand dative forms are possibly reflexive in (100) to (102):

(99) Hom II 8.173He sylf clypode to me‘He himself said to me.’

(100) Hom II 93.51Þa beðohte he hinesylfne.‘Then he reconsidered.’


(101) Hom II 45.117Se ðe himsylfum leofað‘Who that loves himself.’

(102) Hom II 219.185ure gecynd hæfde. on himsylfum genumenour kind had. on him self taken‘The lord had taken our kind on himself.’

Forms in -ne or -um predominantly modify third person pronouns. Thus,sylfnealmost exclusively occurs withhineandsylfumwith him; both modifydirect as well as prepositional objects. In two volumes of theHomilies(firstand second series of theCatholic Homilies), there are 129 instances of ‘hine’followed bysylfne; 9 of mewith sylfne; 86 of him andsylfumand 10 ofmewith sylfum. In comparison, there are 942 instances of ‘hine’, 1608 instancesof him, and 516 ofme. Noticeable, first of all, is that even though there arealmost twice as many instances ofhim as of hine, the latter is more oftenmodified by a form of ‘self’. Using the same method as with Alfred (cf.Table 1.3) to calculate the percentages of third versus first person reflexivesmodified by ‘self’, third person forms modified by ‘self’ are 3.6% of theoverall number of third person pronouns whereas for first person this numberis 1.6%. This third person preference (slightly less obvious than in Alfred butstatistically as significant)9 is related to what is the case in later texts,namely that third person pronouns are the first to develop specially markedreflexives. For now, I just note this fact.

Regarding the kind of inflection, there are no obvious definite forms. Theforms in (99) to (101) are good instances of this. The loss of definite endingsgoes further even than in Alfred, expected if Ælfric is a later author. To givesome numbers, inHomilies II, there are 101 instances ofsylf, 45 of sylfe, 2of sylfes, 81 of sylfne, 1 of sylfreand 1 definite ofsylfa. Except forsylfa, allare indefinite; the instance ofsylfa does not modify a (pro)noun and ispreceded byse ‘the’. Sylfe can, in principle, be definite but all instancesmodify plural pronouns which means thatsylfe is indefinite. There are 51instances ofsylfum and these are ambiguous between singular and pluraldative indefinite and plural dative definite.

9. χ2 = 32.373,p< .001.


Simple pronouns continue to be used reflexively in theHomilies, as in(103) and (104):

(103) Hom II, 257.69Me is god þæt icme to gode geðeodeMe is good that I me to God devote‘It is good that I devote myself to God.’

(104) Hom II, 242.39swa þæt hehine bewendan ne mihteso that he him- turn not could‘so that he couldn’t turn himself.’

We can conclude that in Old English pronouns can be used reflexively. I willargue in Section 1.6 that this is the case because they are not fully specifiedand do not violate the Chain Condition outlined in the introductory chapter.However, the reflexive pronoun (the third person one seems to be the first,especially in Alfred and Ælfric) is increasingly modified by a form of ‘self’.This occurs in all contexts, i.e. in direct, indirect and prepositional objectpositions, by the time of Alfred and Ælfric. The inflection on ‘self’ isincreasingly indefinite, perhaps indicating (as I argue in Chapter 2) that ‘self’is becoming the head of the compound.

1.5 Dialect differences

So far, I have not considered dialect. I have just tacitly assumed that there isan early and later Old English and that the reflexive use of ‘self’ formsincreases with time. Accordingly,BeowulfandJuniushave relatively few, ifany, reflexive ‘selfs’ but Alfred and Ælfric have more. The reason forneglecting dialect is that the older texts are more often Northumbrian andMercian whereas the later texts (e.g. Alfred and Ælfric) are West-Saxon.Some are mixed, for instance, because a West Saxon scribe copied from amore northern original, as in the case ofBeowulf (cf. Bjork & Obermeier1997). The differences I am ascribing to date may therefore be due to dialectinstead. There are 4 commonly recognized Old English dialect areas:Northumbrian, Mercian, West Saxon, and Kentish. As is generally accepted,a number of changes start in the north, e.g. the loss of inflections and theintroduction of certain pronouns. In this section, I compare a Northumbrian


gloss to the New Testament Gospels with a Mercian one and a West Saxonversion (the latter is not a word-for-word gloss). The northern text ‘lagsbehind’ where the numbers of ‘self’ are concerned, but perhaps not in termsof reflexive use: most instances of ‘self’ are used in reflexive contexts, andvery few are clearly emphatic.

Skeat (1871–1887) combines the Northumbrian, Mercian, and two WestSaxon versions in his edition. The two West Saxon versions are based on 6different manuscripts but mainly on the Corpus (c.1000) and Hatton (c.1150)MSs respectively. The Northumbrian version is known as theLindisfarneGospelsand consists of interlinear glosses added around 950 to a Latinoriginal. The Mercian version is also an interlinear gloss, added in the latterpart of the 10th century to a Latin original and is known as theRushworthGlosses. Skeat in his ‘Preface to St. John’s Gospel’ (quoting Murray, cf. alsoBerndt 1956 and Campbell 1959: 7) argues that the language of Matthew inRushworthis very different from that of Mark, Luke and John. Matthew inRushworthis probably Mercian and would differ little from the West Saxonof its time; the other books are more similar to theLindisfarne Gospels. Infact, they are linguistically more northern or later thanLindisfarne. Examin-ing ‘self’, one finds a marked difference between Matthew and the othergospels inRushworth, and inLindisfarne, John is remarkably different too.

In the Lindisfarne version of Matthew (i.e. in the Northumbrian), thereare 7 instances of ‘self’; in the Rushworth version (i.e. in the Mercian), thereare 15. For instance, (105) without ‘self’ is fromLindisfarneand translatesthe Latin simple reflexivese; (106) with ‘self’ is from Rushworth. So, theRushworth scribe added ‘self’:

(105) Lindisfarne, Matthew 12.25hælend wiste smeawunga hiora cueð him eghuelc ric todæledhealer knew thoughts their said them each kingdom dividedbið wið him forleten bið l gewoested bið l tosliten biðbe against it left be and destroyed is and destroyed be andeghuelc burug l hus todæled l tosliten wið him ne stondasevery city and house divided and cut-up against it not stands‘And Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them every kingdom di-vided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or housedivided against itself shall not stand.’


(106) Rushworth, Idemse helend þa witende þohtas heora cweþ to heom æghwilcthe healer then knowing thoughts their said to them eachrice gedeled wið him seolfum awoested bið æghwilckingdom divided against it self destroyed will-be and eachcæstre oþþa hus gedæled wið him seolfum ne stondeþcastle or house divided against it self not stands.

Thus, the more northern text has fewer ‘selfs’, as in (105). There are anumber of indications that (106) is more analytic and later than (105): thepresence of a determinerseand a prepositionto to indicate Case. Hence, thereflexive in (106) is perhaps related to the more analytic later stage ofRushworth.

If Skeat and Murray are right that Mark, Luke, and John inRushworthare even more northern, there should be fewer ‘selfs’ and this is indeed thecase. There is only 1 instance as opposed to 74 in the Lindisfarne counter-part. These data are summarized in Table 1.6. This also shows that John inLindisfarneis quite different. In the table, I have also added the numbers ofthe Corpus MS which is West Saxon of a later time. These numbers indicatethat ‘selfs’ increase:

Table 1.6.‘Self ’ forms in Rushworth, Lindisfarne, and Corpus

Rushworth Lindisfarne Corpus

MatthewMarkLukeJohn

15000001

07101747

017017022047

Total 16 81 103

So, there are at least 4 stages represented in this table: (a) Mark, Luke andJohn inRushworth, (b) Lindisfarne, (c) Matthew inRushworth, and (d) WestSaxon. As Skeat notes, stage (c), the Mercian, is very close to West Saxon.There may be a fifth stage, namely John inLindisfarne.

As to the forms inLindisfarne and Rushworth, most have indefiniteinflection, as in Ælfric. In all ofLindisfarne, ‘self’ modifies a third person40 times, a second person 22 times, a first person 18 times, and an NP once.There is no clear split between first and third persons since nominative


singular pronouns occur approximately 1000 times with first person, and(taking into account that pro-drop occurs about 80% of the time, see Chap-ter 3) 2000 times with 3rd person singular. With second person, there ismore modification with ‘self’ than with first or third person.10 As will beshown in Chapter 5, in Matthew, second person special Case occurs lessoften than with first and third person pronouns. However, it cannot be thatthe demise of inherent Case renders a simple pronoun into an inappropriateanaphor since most of the ‘self’ forms modify the special accusativeðec, orhineas in (107) below.

As to the function, in all ofLindisfarne, seolf, seolfa, seolfe, andseolfoare used as emphatics to subjects 17 times. However, most ‘selfs’ (64, i.e.79%) modify objects. Accusative forms such asseolfnemodify direct andprepositional accusative objects and are possibly reflexive, as in (107).Dative forms such asseolfummodify dative objects such as (108), and couldall be reflexive:

(107) Lindisfarne, Matthew, 27.42oðero halo dyde hine seolfne ne mæge halne doaothers safe made himself- not may save do‘He has saved others, but he cannot save himself.’

(108) Lindisfarne, Mark, 10.26ðaðe suiðor gewundradon cuoeðende to him seolfumthey much wondered, saying to them- self-

‘They were astonished; saying among themselves …’

As (105) shows, simple pronouns can be used reflexively. This is true for firstand second person pronouns as well. Because the special accusative Case is verymuch alive, this form can also be used reflexively in (109), as inExeter:

(109) Lindisfarne, Matthew 11.23ðu huu wið inn heofnum ðu ðec ahefesyou whether to heaven you you arise‘you who are exalted unto heaven.’

In short,Lindisfarne is interesting in that ‘self’ rarely modifies a full NP,indicating it is not really an emphatic. This is confirmed by the low numbers of

10. The difference between first and second person is statisically significant (p< .05).


‘selfs’ appearing in the nominative Case. What remains for further study is towhat extent the Latin original influences the choice. For instance, theoriginal hasse ‘him-’ in (105), seipsum‘him-self’ in (107), and areflexive verb in (109). Second person pronouns are modified by ‘self’ moreoften than first and third person. This too remains for further study.

In the West Saxon Corpus MS, the vowel is-y-, rather than the-eo-of thenorthern; some of the endings are definite endings and the majority is with thirdperson. The ‘self’ forms in this text are emphatic, as in (110), in at least 25instances, as well as possibly reflexive, as in (111) and (112). Unlike inLindisfarne, an NP is on occasion (8 times) modified by ‘self’. Thus, ‘self’ ismore often emphatic in the West Saxon. There is, however, a possible instanceof himsylf indicating more grammaticalization (John, 15.4 is hyphenated inSkeat, unlike the others, but the original has no hyphens of course):

(110) Mark, 12.36Dauid sylf cwæþ to þam halgan gasteDavid self- said to the holy ghost‘David himself said to the holy spirit.’

(111) Luke, 12.17þa ðohte he on him sylfumthen thought he by himself-

‘then he reflected.’

(112) Matthew 27.5 ferde mid gryne hyne sylfne ahengand left and with noose himself- hanged‘and he left and hanged himself with a noose.’

Most of the possibly reflexive forms modify a prepositional object, as in(111), but some modify a direct object, as in (112). ‘Self’ modifies a firstperson 20 times, a second person 19 times, a third person pronoun 53 times.Considering the respective numbers of overt nominative pronouns, there isno person split, but third person might have more pro-drop and this istherefore difficult to gauge. ‘Self’ is also used as an adjective (on ðæresylfan stowe‘in the same place’), unlike inLindisfarne.

Apart from theRushworthversion of Matthew, an earlier Mercian text(early half of the 9th century) isThe Vespasian Psalter(hence VP). It has avery small number of (indefinite) forms in ‘self’, a total of 5, compared to


many thousands of pronouns. Four modify prepositional objects, as in (113),one is used afterhine. Four are third person, and 1 is first; 4 are dative, and1 is accusative. Some could be either reflexive or emphatic in that they referto an antecedent in the same clause; others such as (113) are not:

(113) VP, 35.1cweð se unrehtwisa ðætte in himseolfum nis ege godes biforansaid the unjust that in him self not-is fear god- beforeegum his,eyes his‘The unjust said that there is in him no fear for god before his eyes.’

These 5 instances are very like much like the ‘selfs’ inLindisfarne: allmodify object pronouns. Hence, they are not typically emphatic. Secondperson pronouns are not singled out as they are inLindisfarne.

The special accusative Cases such asmec, þecandhineare still present andcan also be used by themselves as reflexives. Since these forms occur morefrequently in VP than anywhere else, there are more such constructions:

(114) VP, 34.13ic gegeredemec mid heranI prepared mewith an-army

(115) VP, 54.11ic ahyddemec gewislice fro himI hid me- certainly from him(also VP, 118.8, 118.94)

The conclusion about dialect variation is that the more northern or earlier theversion, the fewer forms of ‘self’ occur, but of those that occur more arereflexive. It is hard to decide whether this difference is due to age or dialectsinceLindisfarneandRushworthwere written down around 950 whereas theversion in the Corpus MS was half a century later. The special accusativeCase endings exist for all persons in the Northumbrian and Mercian texts, asopposed to later ones such as West Saxon. The relatively large number ofsecond person pronouns modified by ‘self’ inLindisfarneis puzzling.


1.6 Account and conclusion

In this chapter, I show that (early) Old English has no specially markedreflexive form. Using the insights that the Chain Condition (as in Reinhart &Reuland 1993), and Koster (1993) provide us about inherent Case, this is notsurprising. In Old English, as I show in much detail in Chapter 5, the Caseto the object is mainly inherent as many Cases are distinguished morphologi-cally: the first person nominative, genitive, dative and accusative forms areic, min, me, me(c); the third person forms arehe, his, him andhine. This isindicative of non-structural Case. Many of these Cases are thematicallypredictable, also a sign of inherent Case. Ifme in (7) above has inherentCase, it can form a Chain (i.e. be coindexed) withic becauseme is not fullyspecified. Prepositional objects can also be argued to receive inherent Case.For instance, as in Modern German, certain Cases go with certain preposi-tions, dependent on their meaning, and pseudo passives do not occur (cf.Denison 1993). Thus, in (early) Old English, pronouns function anaphoricallybecause of their inherent Case.

However, as I have mentioned (more in Chapter 5), there are (Late) OldEnglish, West Saxon, texts in which first and second person pronouns ceaseto be inherently Case marked, i.e. they lose special morphological markingearlier than third person. In these texts, third person pronouns are alsoaccompanied by ‘self’ somewhat more frequently. If Case were the onlyfactor relevant to the Chain Condition, one would expect first and secondperson pronouns to stop being used reflexively. This is not true, but there iscorroborating evidence (worked out in Chapters 2 to 4) that certain personand number features are different in character from their Modern Englishcounterparts. For instance, they license pro-drop, and verbal agreement is richer.This is the situation with third person pronouns and points in the direction ofthe person and number features being specified, and possibly Interpretable,i.e. not checked in FCs. What is considered unspecified under the ChainCondition leads to Uninterpretability. The factor that leads to the introductionof the specially marked form, I will argue, is the loss of Case on adjectivesand the ensuing reanalysis of the modifying adjective as a head noun.

Before turning to the additional evidence, in the next chapter, I continuemy discussion of reflexives by examining the developments occurring inMiddle English.

C 2

Reflexives in Middle and later English

Special reflexives continue to be introduced in Early Middle English.However, their introduction proceeds faster with third person pronouns thanwith first and second person ones and faster with second person than withfirst person. This is the opposite from the changes involving Case, describedin Chapters 5 and 6 below. There, I argue that inherent Case is lost for firstand second persons earlier than for third person. If Reinhart & Reuland areright and pronouns can function reflexively if they have inherent Case, onewould expect first and second person pronouns to cease being used reflexive-ly because they should no longer be able to form a chain with an antecedent.I will argue that there is another reason why first and second person pro-nouns continue to function reflexively, namely that they have less specifiedφ-features and may be phonologically reduced. This reduction does not occurwith third person pronouns and therefore at the time that inherent Case islost, they become full-fledged pronominals.

It also becomes clear, especially inGawain and the Green Knight, thatthe reflexive is reinforced with ‘self’ in the oblique position first, not in thedirect object one. This is unexpected for theoretical reasons — the directobject being the minimal domain, cf. 0.3. The explanation I provide for thisis related to how the grammaticalization (i.e. the loss of adjective status) ofthe reflexive proceeds. For some time, the Case of all pronouns is ‘incompat-ible’ with the direct object position. Since the categorial status of thirdperson pronouns is the first to change, specially marked third person reflex-ives appear before first and second ones.

The organization of this chapter is mainly chronological. In 2.1, Iexamine Early Middle English, the two versions of Layamon’sBrut, TheHistory of the Holy Rood Tree, and the two versions ofHali Meidhad. Ofthese, Layamon will be dealt with in the greatest detail and the others will be


discussed in particular where they show differences. In 2.2, I explore worksby the ‘Gawain’ poet; and, in 2.3, Chaucer’s works. Both of these arediscussed in depth. In 2.4, I consider some dialect differences in MiddleEnglish by looking at northern texts such asCursor Mundi, andThe YorkPlaysin relation to the texts discussed in earlier sections. In 2.5, I provide anaccount both of the demise of simple pronouns used reflexively, and of theform and position in which ‘self’ reflexives are introduced. Section 2.6presents data from later stages of the language (up to the present) and 2.7 isa conclusion.

2.1 Early Middle English

As mentioned, I discuss Layamon’sBrut, a long text from the second half ofthe 13th century from the West Midlands. Two versions of the text surviveand it had been argued for some time that the early version (Caligula) wasfrom around 1205 and the later one (Otho) from after 1250. Currently, theyare both dated after 1250 (cf. Barron & Weinberg 1989). Since the languageof Caligula is more archaic, I refer to it as the earlier version. I also discussThe History of the Holy Rood Tree(HRT), a short text from the 12th centurywhich was copied from a Late Old English original (cf. Napier 1894: lix; Ker1940) and retains many archaic features, andHali Meidhad (HM) from theearly 13th century from the West Midlands. In 2.1.1, I provide someevidence for the grammaticalization of the pronoun and ‘self’ into a reflexivecomplex. In 2.1.2, I provide some data on first and second person pronouns,and in 2.1.3, I do the same for third person ones. Section 2.1.4 providessome data on the different functions of the ‘self’ complexes and 2.1.5discusses the two other Early Middle English texts.

2.1.1 Grammaticalization: from adjective to noun

There is evidence (cf. van Gelderen 1996a) that the category of ‘self’changes from adjective to (pro)noun in the 13th century (more on thestructure of this change in Section 2.5 below). I call this grammaticalizationsince it displays many of the characteristics (e.g. loss of phonologicalindependence; semantic bleaching). A first indication that ‘self’ is changing

REFLEXIVES IN MIDDLE AND LATER ENGLISH 65

is that it loses its emphatic function. Some of the emphatics disappear inOtho, e.g. (2) and (4), as compared to (1) and (3) in Caligula. A possiblereflexive that disappears is given in (5) and (6). (In this chapter, I bold theobject pronoun and ‘self’, rather than just ‘self’):

(1) Caligula 5466 heseolf him wolden specken wið‘and he himself wanted to speak with him.’

(2) Otho 5466he wolde come and speke him wiþ.

(3) Caligula 6195 heoseolf liðden forð‘and they themselves went away.’

(4) Otho 6195and hii flowe forþ.

(5) Caligula 10151and wraðe hine sulfneand angered himself-

‘and he angered himself.’

(6) Otho 10151and wreþþede him swiþe.

Emphatics are not only lost, as in (2), they also change from ‘self’ to ‘thyself’, as in (7) and (8):

(7) Caligula 1594þu seolf wurð al hisund‘you yourself be healthy.’

(8) Otho 1594þouþi-seolf far hol and (sunde).

In Chapter 1, I show that ‘self’ is predominantly an emphatic because itmodifies full nouns and subjects, which is typical of emphatics.1 In Table 2.1,I have listed the numbers for both versions of Layamon, as well as those for

1. The exception is the more northernLindisfarne, where ‘self’ modifies a full noun only once(see 1.5) and subjects only in 21%. The also northernVespasian Psalter, not discussed above,shows a similar tendency.


the earlierBeowulf,and Alfred’s Pastoral Care, and the laterGawain forcomparison. In the numbers for Layamon, I have included independent ‘self’as well as a hyphenated or merged ‘self’; the total includes the use of ‘self’as adjective as well, even though in the PC, there are very few adjectivesand this might affect the numbers somewhat:

Table 2.1.Emphatic use of ‘self ’

modifying subject modifying full noun ‘self’

BeowulfPCHom IICaligulaOthoGawain

017 (=49%)131 (=42%)129 (=47%)085 (=44%)061 (=42%)009 (=20%)

08 (=23%)13 (=4%)33 (=12%)29 (=15%)15 (=10%)06 (=13%)

035314277193144045

Thus, the number of cases where ‘self’ modifies a subject decrease graduallyfrom Old to Early Middle English, but more sharply from Early Middle toMiddle English. The use of ‘self’ with full nouns is perhaps more stylistical-ly motivated and does not change much over time; it is often a fixedexpression, e.g. ‘God self’.

A second indication that ‘self’ is changing is that the endings on ‘self’simplify, as shown in the change from (9) to (10), and are reanalyzed asCase markers:

(9) Caligula 4156ah hit wes þurh me seolfnebut it was through meself-

‘but it was through myself.’

(10) Otho 4156ac hit was þorhmi-seolue‘but it was through myself.’

The reason for this change is the general loss of endings on adjectives. Asarticles are introduced, the inflection on adjectives disappears (cf. Mustanoja1960) and, following the Late Old English trend, the definite inflection is the


first to disappear.2

Third, ‘self’ is merged with the pronoun (i.e. written as one word). Forinstance, in Caligula, there is 1miseolf, 1 himseolfand 1himsuluen, whereasin earlier works, there were no such forms. In Caligula, there are also 9forms ofmi-‘self’, 2 of þi-‘self’, and 81 ofhim-‘self’. The hyphens are putinto the edition by Brook & Leslie mainly when the first and second personpronoun is genitive. Unfortunately, there is no facsimile edition available andhence I cannot check the MS. I therefore stick to Brook & Leslie’s notationbut consider forms such asmi-seolfas two words.

A fourth indication of grammaticalization is that the pronoun is genitivein (10) rather than accusative/dative, as in (9). In the Caligula version, thereare 16 ‘self’ variants preceded by an accusative or dativeme, as in (9); in theOtho version, only 1 form occurs preceded byme(in 2.5, I discuss why thirdperson does not change in this respect). Another instance is (11) whichbecomes (12) in the later version:

(11) Caligula 4165 me sulfne heo þencheþ quellenand me self- they think to-kill‘and they plan to kill me.’

(12) Otho 4165and þench(eþ)mi-seolue cwelle

So, the morphological changes involving the pronoun and ‘self’ can be summa-rized as: (a) ‘self’ is lost as an emphatic, (b) the ending on ‘self’ is lost/reduced,(c) the pronoun and ‘self’ merge, and (d) the pronoun changes Case.

2.1.2 First and second person reflexives

First and especially second person pronouns followed by ‘self’ usuallyfunction emphatically (unlike third person ones that can be reflexive). Inaddition, the changes described in 4.1.1 apply to them but, as will be shownin 4.1.3, less so than to third person pronouns.

2. In Caligula, there are very few clearly definite endings, namely three-anendings. There arequite a few-enendings on independent forms of ‘self’ (namely 39) and these may still be seenas definite.


In the early, Caligula, version, there are 16 forms with an accusative/dative pronoun followed by ‘self’, as in (13), (14) and (15), but none arereflexive objects. The forms where a genitive pronoun precedes are 8 ofmi-seolf, as in (16), 1 ofmiseolfas in (17), and 1 ofmi-self. Seven of thesegenitive compounds are emphatic, as in (17), 2 are reflexive adverbials, shownin (16), and 1 is a reflexive following a copula in (18). The latter is a strangeconstruction and the meaning provided in the free gloss seems likely fromthe context. Comparing ‘meself’ with ‘myself’, it could be that the latter ismore likely to be a reflexive than the former, a sign that morphologicalgrammaticalization goes hand in hand with increased grammatical function:

(13) Caligula 4156ah hit wes þurh me seolfnebut it was through meself-

‘but it was through myself.’

(14) Caligula 12939a uolden he me laiden. and lai midme seoluenbut wanted he me lay and laid with me self‘but he wanted to lay me and he lay with me.’

(15) Caligula 14012and þe leo i þan ulode. iwende wiðme seolueand the lion in the water went with me self‘and the lion went into the water, taking me with her.’

(16) Caligula 14004Butenmi-seolf ich gon atstonden‘By myself I stood’, or ‘I myself stood outside.’

(17) Caligula 8511miseolf ich habbe inowe‘I myself have enough.’

(18) Caligula 4397Ah ichmi-seolf neorebut I myself not-was‘But if it wasn’t for me.’

In Caligula, simple pronouns are used reflexively. As (19) and (20) show,they function both as direct and prepositional objects. In the entire text, thereare 13 instances ofmeused reflexively:


(19) Caligula 9500and ichme wulle ræstenand I myself want to rest‘And I want to rest myself.’

(20) Caligula 10967swa ich here biuorenme. mid æŠenen bihælde.‘such as I see here before me with my own eyes.’

In 5 instances, first person plural pronouns are also used reflexively, as in(21) and (22). There are 6 instances of a combination with a ‘self’ form, asin (23), and 2 of these are possibly reflexive, as in (24). Note that thepronoun is still accusative rather than genitive. Two occur with the dual, asin (25), 1 of which is probably reflexive. I will disregard the dual since thereare not enough examples. Compared to the singular, there are more uses ofreflexive ‘self’ in plural and dual:

(21) Caligula 2999Wrake weus on Bruttes‘Let us avenge ourselves on the Britons.’

(22) Caligula 9176 leten weus ræden. of ure misdeden‘and let us confess our misdeeds.’

(23) Caligula 1656Vs selve we habbet cokes‘Ourselves, we have cooks.’

(24) Caligula 2593Greiðe weus seoluenMake-ready we ourselves‘Let’s get ready.’

(25) Caligula 11809þat fehten wit scullenunc seoluenthat fight we- shall us- selves‘That we shall fight each other.’

With second persons, there are only 2 singular forms preceded by a genitivepronoun, as in (26), and both are emphatic. The 10 forms preceded by anaccusative/dative, as in (27) and (28), are mainly emphatic as well, eventhough some are ambiguous, as in (27) and (29), and 2 are reflexives, 1 a


prepositional object, as in (30), and 1 an oblique object, as in (31). There are9 pronouns that function reflexively; 2 of them are given in (32) and (33):

(26) Caligula 8963þat weore þu Uðerþi-seolfthat was you Uther yourself

(27) Caligula 14048and ich æm icumen toþe seoluenAnd I am come to you self‘I have come to you.’

(28) Caligula 9915–6a bruttenþe seoluen / halden laŠen rihte‘In Britain, (you) yourself maintain the right law.’

(29) Caligula 4907 þe seoluen þin folc. falleð to grundeand you- self- and your people fall to the ground‘and you yourself and your people fall to the ground.’

(30) Caligula 8951ah þenc ofþe seoluen‘but think of yourself.’

(31) Caligula 2519and donþe seoluen bisemar‘and bring digrace on yourself.’

(32) Caligula 8089Nu þu scaltþe warmen þer‘Now you shall warm yourself.’

(33) Caligula 8596 þat weorc þu scalt bringen. midþe to þissen londe‘and that work you shall bring with you to this land.’

With second person plural, there are 2 combinations with ‘self’ — 1 ofwhich is reflexive (with pro-drop, i.e. l. 6245) — and one of second persondual and ‘self’. The latter, however, is emphatic. There are at least 3instances of the simple pronouneow functioning reflexively.

Thus, with first person singular forms, ‘self’ marks reflexivity, as in (16)above, in 2 cases, while simple pronouns do so at least 13 times. Withsecond singular, these numbers are 2 and 9 respectively. With first person


plural, 2 ‘self’ forms and 5 simple pronouns function reflexively, whereaswith second person plural pronouns the numbers are 1 and 3 respectively. Ifplural is more often modified by ‘self’, this may be an indication that theirfeatures are more specified.

Table 2.2 provides a summary for first person singular of these functionsas well as of the morphological form:

Table 2.2.Changes in the first person singular reflexive in Layamon

Caligula Otho

reflexive non-reflexive reflexive non-reflexive

meme ‘self’mi-‘self’mi‘self’

13000200

516016007001

9020

398001019000

With the morphological change between Caligula and Otho (e.g.me‘self’ becomingmi-self), one might expect a decrease of the reflexive use ofthe simple pronoun. This, however, is not the case. There are 545 instancesof me in Caligula, 13 of which are clearly reflexive. These are direct as wellas oblique objects. In Otho, the situation does not change, except that themanuscript is damaged and, as a result, there are only 408 instances ofme,9 of which are reflexively used (the ratio remains the same). The form of thepronoun is only indicative of reflexive use with first person singular. We cantherefore conclude that the morphological changes and the introduction of aspecial reflexive are show.

2.1.3 Third person reflexives

The situation with third person pronouns is different. Simple pronounscontinue to be used in both prepositional and direct object positions (I find4 instances ofhim, 16 of hine, and 8 of the pluralheom) used reflexively inCaligula.3 As in Old English (e.g.Beowulf), hine is used as direct object, as

3. I searchedhe (there are 3449 occurrences) in the environment ofhim andhine but sincethere may be pro-drop with third persons, this method is not completely reliable.


in (34) and (35), andhim as prepositional object, as in (36). The pluralaccusative is sometimesheo, but I find no cases used reflexively:

(34) Caligula 3302hehine vncuð makede‘he made himself unknown/unrecognizable.’

(35) Caligula 2291hehine bi-ðohtehe him thought-about‘he considered.’

(36) Caligula 8908naðeles he hafede midhim‘nonetheless he had with him.’

In the later Otho version, the numbers are different because the speciallymarked accusative is disappearing. In this text, 11 instances ofhim and 8instances ofhineare used reflexively. The total number ofhines in Caligulais 682 and in Otho, 430. I will argue in Chapter 5 that the decline of the useof hine is related to the loss of inherent Case.

Unlike with first and second persons, there are manyhims (but nothinesor his forms)4 combined with a form of ‘self’ used reflexively (mainly asprepositional objects, as in (37) and (38), but also as beneficial object, as in(39) and possibly (40)). There is only one possible instance of ‘self’ with adirect object, namely (41), but this could be an emphatic to the subject.There are 16 third person plurals combined with ‘self’ and they pattern withthe singulars in that half of the forms are reflexive:

(37) Caligula 1454he heo lette nemnen; efterhim-seoluanhe- it- let name after himself‘and had it named after himself.’

(38) Caligula 770Corineus com quecchen. to him-seolfe queð‘Corineus came collecting spoil and to himself said.’

4. The exception is l. 15032 wherehin-seolfoccurs emphatically.


(39) Caligula 5839he makedehim-seluen muchel clondHe made himself much pain‘He made for himself much pain’, i.e. he brought disaster upon himself.

(40) Caligula 5604haldehim-seolf þisne dom‘held for himself this authority.’

(41) Caligula 5856–7Maximien … to restenhine seolue‘Maximilian … to rest himself.’

The third person singular forms are summarized in Table 2.3 for the twoversions. The table shows (a) that the special accusative form, i.e.hine, isgeneralized in the later Otho tohim, (b) that the percentage of ‘self’ markedreflexives remains stable between the two versions, around 40% (Note againthat the hyphen is inserted in the Brook & Leslie edition), and (c) that thepronoun is not genitive:

Table 2.3.Third person singular reflexives and forms with ‘self ’ in Layamon

Caligula Otho

reflexive non-reflexive reflexive non-reflexive

‘him’hinehim‘self’‘him’-‘self’hin-seolfhine ‘self’

041601310013

11465

06530001004900010000

110800340000

818422000051000000

Above, I have shown that first and second person pronouns continue tobe used reflexively in Caligula and Otho. There are only 4 instances ofmeor þe combined with ‘self’ in Caligula that are reflexive, whereas there are22 reflexively used pronouns (=85%). With third person, the figures are 45

5. There are a total of 1230hims in Caligula, but I have subtracted the ones where ‘self’follows; the same is done for ‘hine’. For Otho, the calculations were arrived at in the sameway.


with ‘self’ against 20 ‘simple’ forms (=31%). There exists a relationshipbetween person and type of reflexive, i.e. simple or modified by ‘self’ (χ2 =21.667,p< .001).

With plural pronouns, as mentioned above, the figures are different. Firstperson plural has 2 reflexive ‘self’ forms and 5 simple pronouns; secondperson plural has 1 ‘self’ and 3 simple pronouns, and third person plural has8 and 8 respectively. Even though I am not taking into consideration theinstances of empty subjects, it is clear that the third person singular is firstto develop the special form, followed by third plural, followed by first andsecond person.

2.1.4 Binding domain

As to the position in the sentence, reflexive compounds with ‘self’ occur inLayamon: (a) after prepositions, as in (42) to (47); (b) in oblique contexts, asin (39) and (40) above and possibly (48); (c) possibly as subjects, as in (49)and (50); and (d) as direct objects, as in (41), repeated as (51). The directobject cases are rare and (51) is the only one. The percentages Keenan(1994: Appendix) gives (for a portion of Caligula) for forms with ‘self’ usedwith direct versus prepositional object are 8% against 29%:

(42) Caligula 214he heihte his folc sumunen. cumen tohim-seoluen‘he ordered his people together to come to him.’

(43) Caligula 770Corineus com quecchen. to him-seolfe queð‘Corineus advanced and to himself said.’

(44) Caligula 977Ah scupte him nome; æfterhim-seluan‘But (Brutus) gave it a name after him.’

(45) Caligula 1382iholden midhimself‘(he) held with himself.’

(46) Caligula 1454he heo lette nemnen. efterhim-seoluan‘he it let be named after himself.’


(47) Caligula 1470He seide tohimsuluen‘He said to himself.’

(48) Caligula 13951and seide þat he wolde.him-seolue þat lond holde‘and said that he wanted to hold the land for himself.’

(49) Caligula 309him-self mid his fenge. he to wode ferde‘He himself with his hostages went to the woods.’

(50) Caligula 1102 him-seolf… ferde into ane watere‘and (he) himself went into the water.’

(51) Caligula 5856–7Maximien … to restenhine seolue‘Maximilian … to rest himself.’

Thus, in Caligula (and Otho), the introduction of special reflexives is mostcommon with prepositional objects (adjunct as well as complement). Thiscan also be seen in the pronouns accompanied by ‘self’ that are introducedin Otho. The cases in which Otho has special reflexives where Caligula hassimple pronouns or nouns are in prepositional object position, as (52) and(53) show:

(52) Caligula 1026hehte heo nemnen Kaerlud. æfterþone kinge‘(he) called it (the city) Kaerlud after the king (i.e. himself).’

(53) Otho, idemhehte nemny hine Kairlud. afterhim-seolue.

In summary to Layamon, there is evidence that, between the two versions,emphatics are gradually disappearing and that the morphology is changing. Firstand second person pronouns followed by ‘self’ usually function emphatically,but about half of the third person pronouns are reflexive. This situation isperhaps not surprising: if the specially marked form is introduced, it makespragmatic sense that this happens in ambiguous contexts, i.e. third person.One might, however, expect that the introduction would be limited to thedirect domain, as in (51). This is not the case because the form mainlyoccurs in the oblique domain (prepositional and indirect object) as in (44).


2.1.5 Reflexives in other texts

The History of the Holy Rood Tree(HRT) is a short West Saxon text from the12th century (Napier 1894: lvii). It has a few instances where a ‘self’ markedpronoun is possibly reflexive, as in (54); it also has instances where thesimple pronoun is used, as in (55). As in Layamon, the accusative forms ofthe first and second persons (mecand þec) have disappeared buthine andhim are still used as masculine singulars:

(54) HRT, 14.30þu hæfst midþe sylfum þ ðu him mid hælpen miht‘you have with you that with which you can help him.’

(55) HRT, 6.11þer hehine restæð‘where he is resting.’

The total number of forms with ‘self’ is 10, of which only 1 is possiblyreflexive and 6 are emphatic. Three function as subjects, as in (56), aconstruction which I come back to in 2.5. One of these subjects is a com-pound, as in (56). Only 2 have a Case ending, as in (54). Apart from (54),they all modify third person pronouns:

(56) HRT, 24.32–3& wende þahimsylf ðerto‘and then turned himself there.’

The only possible reflexive is in a prepositional object position, similar tothe situation in other texts. Even though inherent Case is quite ‘alive’ inHRT, it is not on ‘self’.

There are a number of other West Midland texts from the beginning ofthe century when Layamon was written. These are referred to as the ‘ABlanguage’ (e.g. Jack 1991) or the language of the ‘Katherine Group’ (e.g.Logan 1973). Texts include, among others,Katerine, Margarete, Iuliene,Hali Meidhad, Sawles Warde, and Ancrenne Wisse. The manuscripts theyoccur in are Bodley 34, Cotton Titus D 18, Royal 17A and Cotton Nero A.There has been a lot of discussion as to the relationship between thesemanuscripts, but Bodley is said to be West Midlands; the other manuscriptsare said to be of mixed dialect (cf. Logan 1973: 29; d’Ardenne 1977), withTitus having the most northern and eastern elements.


In the remainder of this section, I discuss a ‘pure’ AB version ofHaliMeidhad(hence, HM) as it appears in the Bodley MS and another version fromthe Titus MS. (An advantage with looking at Bodley is that a facsimile exists,Ker 1960). In HM, 22 instances of ‘self’ occur, of which 2 are clear adjectivespremodifying a noun meaning ‘same’, in which case an-e ending appears. Ofthe remaining 20, 5 are emphatic, as in (57), and 15 are possibly reflexive,as in (58). Both emphatic and possible reflexive have zero or-enendings:

(57) HM (B), 240low, goddhim seolf seið þurh þe prophete‘Low, God himself said through the prophet.’

(58) HM (B), 590Muchele mare he haueð … ethalden tohim seoluen‘Much more he has … retained for himself.’

The emphatic forms are 2 times just a form of ‘self’ and 3 times a complexform, as in (57). The latter is an indication of the grammaticalization andmorphological dependence of ‘self’ on the pronoun. In the facsimile, all 22forms are written morphologically separately. The-enending in (58) presum-ably indicates Case. In the cases where the ending does not appear in objectposition, there is an alternative analysis, and one can conclude therefore thatendings express Case. For instance, in (59), it may be thatseolf is seen as anoun since the Titus version hasouercume hire flesch‘overcomes her flesh’(more on this in 2.5):

(59) HM (B), 703ouercumehire seolf‘overcomes herself.’

As to the person split, of the 15 possibly reflexive ‘selfs’, 3 modify a secondperson pronoun and 12 a third person. There is only 1 first person reflexivelyused simple pronoun, and no ‘self’ marked ones. With second personpronouns, simple pronouns (i.e. 8 times) remain used in direct object positionas in (60), but there are 3 reflexive forms with ‘self’. In contrast to first andsecond person, with third person pronouns, there are very few simple formssuch as the one in (61). Out of 100 instances ofhim in HM (B), only 3 arereflexive, 2 of which are indirect objects and 1 plural, namely (61), but, asmentioned, there are 12 forms with ‘self’:


(60) HM (B), 80Nu þenne on oðer half nimþe to þe worlde‘Now then, on the other hand, take thyself to the world.’

(61) HM (B), 179’t healenham wid soð schrift‘and heal themselves with true shrift.’

In brief, there is a real increase in reflexive use of ‘self’ compared to e.g.Layamon, even though the pronoun connected with ‘self’ in HM(B) isaccusative (not genitive as in Layamon) and the pronoun and ‘self’ are neverwritten as a unit. The number of simple third person pronouns used reflex-ively is also very reduced, compared to the other pronouns, i.e. there is aperson split as in other texts. As to the function, most forms with ‘self’modify prepositional rather than direct objects (Keenan’s 1994, Appendix,percentages fit with this and are 45% vs 1%, even though it is not clearwhich version he uses). Sentence (59) is one of 3 where ‘self’ modifies asecond or third person direct object; the other 12 modify prepositionalobjects as in (58).

In the other HM version from the Titus MS, except for the loss ofseolfin (59), the numbers stay the same. There are some changes, however. (a)Three forms are written together, as in (62), cf. (57) in the Bodley. (Unfortu-nately no facsimile of the manuscript is available, but both editors, Furnivall(1922) and Colburn (1940), list (57) as (62)).6 (b) In 2 instances,self, as in(63), replacesseluen in (64). (The latter may be due to the ending notreflecting Case but number, which is an indication as I later discuss that‘self’ is becoming head). (c) Once, an-en is replaced by an-e ending:

(62) HM (T), 247 (also B 146; B 381)low, godd himself seið þurh þe prophete …‘Low, God himself said through the prophet.’

(63) HM (T), 101nat tah na mon bute ham self hwat ham sticheð oftenot-knows no man except him self what him pains often‘No man knows what pains him often, except the man himself’.

6. Millett’s (1982) edition, supposedly of Bodley, hashimseolfas one form. Millett, who saysthat notes to the other editions are provided, never mentions this difference.


(64) HM (B), 98nat þah na mon buteham seolfen hwet ham sticheð ofte.

Other texts from the Titus MS such asAncrene WisseandWohunge of ureLauerd (Thompson 1958) show similar tendencies, namely the pronoun and‘self’ are written as one word. Thus, the Titus version is more ‘advanced’ interms of grammaticalization than Bodley is.

In conclusion to 2.1, the three Early Middle English texts representdifferent stages. All three texts have a definite preference for the use of‘self’ in conjunction with a pronoun in prepositional object position. In allthree, ‘self’ shows an inclination to follow a third person pronoun. Of thethree, HRT shows the least use of ‘self’ as a reflexive (only 1 prepositionalobject). The form is ‘modern’ in that it is a compound once and bears noending. This shows that changes in the morphology do not cause immediatesyntactical changes. The person split is evident. HM has 15 possible reflex-ive ‘self’ forms, but mainly with third person pronouns. Layamon has quitea number of possibly reflexive ‘self’ forms with all persons, even though thethird person is preferred. The morphology between the two versions ofLayamon is changing, as the genitive replaces the accusative first and secondperson forms. This is an indication of grammaticalization. Yet, the ratio ofsimple pronoun used reflexively against compound does not change betweenthe two versions, so again, the morphological and syntactical changes do notoccur at the same time.

2.2 Middle English: The ‘Gawain’ poet

In this section, I examineGawain and the Green Knightwhich is from themiddle of the 14th century and from an area somewhat more northern thanLayamon and the Katerine Group, discussed above. The picture that emergesis clear but the number of occurrences small. I therefore look at four otherpoems ascribed to the same poet (cf. Gardner 1965). A Concordance (Kottler& Markman 1966) exists of the five together.

InGawain and theGreenKnight, first and second person pronouns continueto be used reflexively, as (65) to (71) show, but forms such asmyselfeareintroduced in oblique environments, as in (72) and (73). Out of a total of 5first person ‘self’ compounds, these are the only 2 used reflexively:


(65) Gawain 1009I pynedme parauenture‘I troubled myself perhaps.’

(66) Gawain 402And I shal ware alle my wyt to wynneme þeder‘And I shall employ all my wit to get myself there.’

(67) Gawain 474I mayme wel dres‘I may prepare myself well’

(68) Gawain 1215For I Šeldeme Šederly‘Because I surrender myself promptly.’

(69) Gawain 1964I Šef yowme for on of youreŠ‘I give to you myself for one of yours.’

(70) Gawain 2121And I schal hyŠ me hom aŠayn‘And I shall hasten myself home again.’

(71) Gawain 2159And to hym I hafme tone‘And to him I have committed myself.’

(72) Gawain 1540Bot to take þe toruayle tomyself to trwluf expounBut to take the hard task to myself to true love expound‘But to take on the task of interpreting true love.’

(73) Gawain 2434When I ride in renoun, remorde tomyseluen‘When I ride in glory, (I) call to mind with remorse to myself.’

Sentences (65) to (73) show that the simple first person pronoun occurs inobject position, whereasmyself/uenoccurs as object of a preposition. Thismeans that the simple pronoun is still the reflexive but that the introductionof the ‘self’-compound occurs in oblique (i.e. non-direct object) position.There are no first person plural ‘self’ forms and (only) 19 instances ofweoccur but none is followed by a reflexiveus.

In Gawain, the forms with ‘self’ are not emphatic since emphatics to


pronouns7 are no longer formed by adding ‘self’ but as in (74) by addingthe compound. If (73) had been emphatic, it might have looked like (75).Such sentences are unattested as ‘%’ indicates:

(74) Gawain 1052For I am sumnedmyselfe to sech to a place‘For I myself am summoned to seek a place.’

(75)%remorde tome myselfue.

The situation is similar with second person singular. The only reflexive formmarked with ‘self’ is given in (76) and is in prepositional object position.The simple pronoun is used reflexively in direct object position in 2 instanc-es, namely (77) and (78):

(76) Gawain 2141þat þou wylt þyn awen nye nyme to þyseluenthat you want your own harm bring upon yourself‘that you want to take all your trouble on yourself.’

(77) Gawain 2341haldeþe wel payed‘hold yourself well paid.’

(78) Gawain 2348þou trystyly þe trawþe and trwly me haldezyou faithfully you believe in and faithfully me hold‘Faithfully you kept your trust in yourself and held me.’

The same is true for second person plural, except that the reflexive form in(80) is used without referring to an NP in the same clause. This is possiblein impersonal constructions, for reasons to be discussed below:

(79) Gawain 1267Hit is þe worchyp ofyourself‘It is the honorable treatment of yourself.’

7. ‘Self’ functions as an emphatic to full nouns, as in (i), and in (89) below:

(i) Gawain, 2156‘Bi goddez self ’, quoþ Gawayn‘by God himself said Gawain


(80) Gawain 1964if yowreself lykez‘If you would like.’

(81) Gawain 1394WhereŠe wan þis ilk wele bi wytte ofyorseluenwhere you won this kind wealth by intelligence of yourself‘where you acquired wealth of this kind through your wisdom.’

(82) Gawain 1547–8As I am hyŠly bihalden, and euermore wylle / Be seruaunt toyour-seluen, so saue me dryŠtyn‘For I am highly beholden and evermore shall be the servant of you,so save me God.’

It may or may not be coincidental that the prepositions in (72), (73), (76),(79), (81), and (82) are ‘light’ ones, inserted for Case reasons. Regardless ofwhether or not they are, it is still unexpected that specially marked reflexivesoccur as complements of those prepositions rather than as direct objects.

Third person ‘self’ forms, as in (83), are different in that even though morehymselfs occur as prepositional objects than as direct objects, there are 3direct objects out of 24 ‘self’ forms, as in (84). Many of the ‘self’ forms arenon-reflexive, as in (85), and there is also an impersonal subject, as in (86):

(83) Gawain 1198Bot Šet he sayde inhymself‘But still he said to himself.’

(84) Gawain 2040Bot for to sauenhymself‘But to save himself.’

(85) Gawain 1085Þer watz seme solace byhemself stille‘There was fair pleasure by themselves privately.’

(86) Gawain 976To be her seruaunt sothly, ifhemself lyked‘To be their faithful servant, if it would be pleasing to them.’

A small number of third person simple pronouns (8 to be precise, out of atotal of 267 ‘him’s) continue to be used reflexively, mainly in direct objectpositions such as in (87):


(87) Gawain 1309And he rycheshym to ryse and rapeshym sone‘And he prepares himself to rise and rushes himself.’

As to the form, there are 3 independentselfs, but they are adjectival notreflexive, as in (88); there are also 4seluenof which 1 is emphatic, as in(89), 1 is a noun, and 2 are adjectives:

(88) Gawain 751þat on þatself nyŠt‘who on the same night …’

(89) Gawain 51þe most kyd knyŠteŠ vnder Krystesseluen‘the most famous of knights under Christ himself.’

The ending seems not to be relevant to Case (for either emphatic or reflex-ive). Thus, (72) above has no ending but the very similar (73) has one. Thesame is true with second person, as (79) and (81) above show; and with thirdperson, as (90) and (91) show, where the reflexives are both objects toprepositions, but where the endings differ:

(90) Gawain 2023Whyle þe wlonkest wedes he warp onhymseluen‘While he put the finest garments on himself.’

(91) Gawain 1198Bot Šet he sayde inhymself‘But still he said to himself.’

The pronominal form is the modern one, except for 1hisseluen, as in (92),but in this case its use is emphatic:

(92) Gawain 107Thus þer stondes in stale þe stif kynghisseluen‘Thus there stood (standing) the strong king himself.’

The four other poems of the ‘Gawain’ poet are:St. Erkenwald, Pearl,CleannessandPatience. In Erkenwald, there are 4 forms with ‘self’ listed inKottler & Markman, namely (93), (94), (95), and (96), but they fit thegeneralizations made forGawain:


(93) Erkenwald 170To seche þe sothe atoureselfe‘to explore the truth for/by ourselves.’

(94) Erkenwald 185Sithen we wot not qwo þou art, witere usþiselwen‘Since we know not who you are, inform us yourself.’

(95) Erkenwald 197Fyrst to say the þe sothe quomyselfe were‘First to say the truth who I was.’

(96) Erkenwald 300And þat han we myste alle merciles,myselfe and my soule‘And that have we missed all mercilessly, myself and my soul.’

Sentence (93) is expected since the specially marked form is a reflexive andis an object to a preposition; (94) is emphatic. Sentence (95) is interestingsince it might be one wheremyselfefunctions as a subject. In (96),myselfeis used as in Modern English independently in a coordinate NP.

In Pearl, 17 instances of ‘self’ forms occur. They are no different fromthe ones inGawain. For instance, the only reflexive ‘myself’ functions asprepositional object as in (97), whereas third persons appear as direct objectsas in (98):

(97) Pearl 1175tomyself I sayd‘To myself I said.’

(98) Pearl 680Hymself to answare he is not dylle‘Hymself to answer he is not slow.’

In Cleanness, there are 28 instances and 1 (in example (99)) is a counterexample to the claim that specially marked first and second person forms donot occur as direct objects. The others, such as (100), show that first andsecond person pronouns occur reflexively as prepositional objects but thatthird person ones, as in (101) and (102), occur as direct objects:

(99) Cleanness 863Še vylenyourseluen‘you dirty yourself.’


(100) Cleanness 581Boy sauyour, mon, inþyself‘But know, man, in thyself.’

(101) Cleanness 388Summe swymed þeron þat sauehemself trawed‘Some swim in it that hope to save themselves’

(102) Cleanness 702When two true togeder had tyŠedhemseluen‘When two people had truly joined themselves together.’

In Patience, there are 6 instances of forms with ‘self’, given in (103) to(108). These are again in accordance with what I argue forGawain:

(103) Patience 219to helpenhemseluen‘to help themselves.’

(104) Patience 402He styŠtlezHymseluen‘He walks hymself.’

(105) Patience 316teme toþyseluen‘belong to you.’

(106) Patience 386demed ofmyseluen‘uttered by myself.’

(107) Patience 503Fyrst I made hemMyself‘I made them myself.’

(108) Patience 517in no sythemseluen to greue‘in no sorrow to trouble themselves.’

The data inGawain and the Green Knightand in the other four works of the‘Gawain’ poet indicate two problems for ‘traditional’ Binding Theory. Theseproblems were mentioned before but nowhere are they clearer than here.First, the domain in which specially marked anaphoric forms appear is notusually within the immediate domain of the verb. This presents problems for


Reinhart & Reuland’s (1993) condition on predicates, as well as for Chom-sky’s (1981, 1986a) notion of governing category and for Koster’s (1993)Agr-domain. Second, there is a difference between first and second personanaphors on the one hand and third person ones on the other: third personreflexives such ashymselfare used as direct objects, but first and secondperson reflexive forms are only used in oblique position. In 2.5, I suggest anaccount for both, based on the unspecified features of first and second personpronouns and the ‘oblique’ shape of the first and second person speciallymarked reflexive. I now turn to Chaucer and will show that the data are verysimilar toGawain for first and third but not for second person reflexives.

2.3 Chaucer

Chaucer wrote at the end of the 14th century in a relatively conservativesouthern dialect. His use of simple pronouns and ‘self’ compounds asreflexives goes one step further than the earlierGawain: in Gawain, first andsecond pattern against third person pronouns; in Chaucer, first patternsagainst second and third. I start with a discussion of first, then second andfinally third person reflexive pronouns.

With first person singular reflexives, there are more simple pronounsthan specially marked ones: at least 142 instances of reflexiveme, as in(109) to (115), but 77 forms of ‘myself’, as in (116) to (118), most of whichare emphatic (see Table 2.4 below):

(109) Wife of Bath’s Tale 1231I putme in youre wise governance‘I am putting myself under your wise control.’

(110) Melibee 1058if I governedme by thy conseil‘If I conductedmyselfby your counsel.’

(111) Romaunt 1807And faste thanne I avysedeme‘And quickly I decided.’

(112) Romaunt 6297If I may passenme herby‘If I may proceed.’


(113) Troilus and Criseyde Bk 2, 12Forwhi to every lovere Ime excuse.‘Therefore I apologize to every lover.’

(114) Clerk’s Tale 145I me rejoysed of my liberte‘I was happy with my liberty.’

(115) Knight’s Tale 2052I wol me haste‘I will hurry.’

(116) Knight’s Tale 1813I woot it bymyself ful yore agon‘I knew it myself long ago.’

(117) Pardoner’s Tale 840–1I myghte Have al this tresor tomyself allone‘I might have all this treasure to myself alone.’

(118) Boece Bk 1 P4, 105I ne reservede nevere nothyng tomyselve‘I never reserved anything for myself.’

As to the position in which the different forms occur, the simple pronounmeis used in direct object position (except in the expressionsayde for me);while myself is used mainly in oblique position.8 The same distributionoccurs in the case ofus (shown in (119) and (120)) of which around 20cases occur.Ourselfandus selvenare used reflexively in oblique contexts in(121) and (122). In 2.5 below, I argue that, when the pronominal form isvery weak, as in Modern Dutch, it only appears in object position. In theother positions, it needs to be reinforced. Chaucer’s English is similar toDutch. In Dutch, the simple pronoun is reinforced either by ‘self’ or by usinga more specified pronoun; in Chaucer, it is reinforced by ‘self’:

(119) Melibee 1765we puttenus and oure goodes al fully in youre wil and disposicioun.‘We put ourselves and our goods at your disposition.’

8. The main exception is the verbslayandmordre. It may be that these verbs are usually notreflexive, and that the special reflexive is used for emphasis.


(120) Melibee 1821we submyttenus to the excellence and benignitee of youre graciouslordshipe.‘We submit ourselves to the excellence and kindness of your graciouslordship.’

(121) Boece Bk 3, P 12, 128we aughten ben asschamid ofourself‘We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.’

(122) Wife of Bath’s Prologue, 812We fille acorded byus selven two‘We agreed with each other.’

Second person ‘self’ forms are different. Many are emphatic, as in (123); afew are in subject position by themselves, as in (124); many are directobjects, as in (125) to (127), and many are objects to prepositions, as in(128). The same seems true for the second person plural:

(123) Boece Bk 5, P4, 5and thouthiself hast ysought it mochel‘You yourself have sought it much.’

(124) Troilus and Criseyde Bk 3, 369Sith I so loth was thatthiself it wiste.‘Since I was so reluctant that you would know it.’

(125) Merchant’s Tale 1385If thou lovestthyself, thou lovest thy wyf‘If you love yourself, you love your wife also.’

(126) Troilus and Criseyde Bk 4, 528Why nyltthiselven helpen don redresse‘Why do you not want to help redress this.’

(127) Boece Bk 4, P4, 195for thow hast joynedthiself to the most excellent thing.‘because you have joined yourself with the most excellent.’

(128) Troilus and Criseyde Bk 4, 620Have mercy onthiself for any awe‘Have mercy on yourself despite any fear.’


The second person simple pronountheeis used reflexively but, as mentionedabove, much less frequently than with first persons (namely 23 times asopposed to 142).

Third person reflexives pattern with second person ones in that thesimple pronoun is used much less than the compound form. Even thoughmost of the reflexive ‘self’ forms occur as objects of a preposition, as in(129), there are quite a lot of direct objects, as in (130). The simple formhim/hymis often used reflexively as ‘ethical dative’, as in (131), and withinherently reflexive verbs (i.e. verbs that exclusively have reflexive objects)such as the one in (132):

(129) Knight’s Tale 1773And softe untohymself he seyde‘And softly, he said to himself.’

(130) Parson’s Tale 1042and helpenhymself the ofter with the orisoun‘and help himself more often with prayer.’

(131) Knight’s Tale 2270And with glad herte he wentehym hoom ful soone‘And he went home quickly happily.’

(132) Parson’s Tale 1017that he may nat pleynly shryvenhym‘that he may not plainly confess.’

Keenan (1994: Appendix), who makes no person distinction but who looksat function, notes that inTroilus & Criseyde‘self’ forms are direct objects in22% of cases and prepositional objects in 75%. In theCanterbury Tales, thisusage is 18% versus 42%, in accordance with my observations that thespecial reflexive is introduced in the oblique position.

In Chaucer, there are 4 independent forms as in (133) to (136) (and 18adjectives as in (137)). It is interesting that first person ones predominate.The reason is that first person plural is the last to grammaticalize andbecome a unit:

(133) Clerk’s Tale 108Ne koude natus self devysen how‘We ourselves could not devise how.’


(134) Wife of Bath’s Prologue 812We fille acorded byus selven two‘We agreed sufficiently.’

(135) Parson’s Tale 349we deceyveus selve‘We deceive ourselves.’

(136) Parson’s Tale 1042for it comprehendeth init self alle goode preyeres‘Because it contains all the good prayers.’

(137) Knight’s Tale 2584And in thatselve moment …‘And in that very same moment,.’

The significance of the endings is unclear, however. In (133),self is correctbut the subject pronoun has the ‘wrong’ Case; also in (136) and (139), onemight expect an-e ending in direct object and object of a preposition posi-tions. However, it seems that by Chaucer’s time, Case endings were not used‘appropriately’. Sentence (139) without ending and (140) with ending showthe confusion:

(138) Legend of Good Women 1879that Cristhimselve telleth …‘that Christ himself tells …’

(139) Franklin’s Tale 1422–3it is bet for me To sleenmyself than been defouled thus.‘It is better to slay myself than to be defiled this way.’

(140) Manciple’s Tale 291Allas For sorwe, I wolmyselven slee‘Alas, for sorrow, I want to kill myself.’

As I mentioned above, there are 142 instances of reflexivemeand 77 formsof ‘myself’, of which 22 are used reflexively. To show that the person splitexists, I compare these with second and third person pronouns. There are 23reflexive uses oftheeand 97 forms of ‘thyself’, of which 43 are reflexivelyused; there are also approximately 15 instances ofhim/hymused reflexivelybut 270 forms of ‘himself’, of which 208 are used reflexively (Note that Ihave searched for a subject pronoun in the immediate environment ofme,thee, and hym/him; there may be others but at least the ratios should be


correct). Thus, it emerges that first (and second) person simple pronounscontinue to be used reflexively longer than third person ones but that secondand third person specially marked reflexives are more prevalent than firstperson ones. The difference in reflexive use of ‘thyself’ and ‘himself’ isstatistically significant (p< .001), and so are the differences between‘myself’ and ‘thyself’ (p< .05) and between ‘myself’ and ‘himself’ (p< .001).The results are summarized in Table 2.4:

Table 2.4.Reflexive singular pronouns in Chaucer

reflexive non-reflexive total

memyselftheethyselfhimhimself

142 (=6%)022 (=29%)023 (=4%)043 (=44%)015 (=.5%)208 (=77%)

221300550541005428970062

235500770564009729120270

Reviewing the data from Chaucer, the first person simple pronoun is usedreflexively in direct object position; outside that immediate domain, a specialindicator, i.e. a ‘self’-marked form, is needed. This is not true for second andthird person pronouns where even though specially marked forms predomi-nate in prepositional object position, some occur as direct objects. Also,simple forms occur less frequently with third person. I will entertain anumber of ways to account for the Middle English data in 2.5.

2.4 Dialect considerations

Until now, I have not taken into account the different Middle English dialectareas, of which there are 5 main ones: Northern, East Midlands, WestMidlands, Southern and Kentish. Some of the northern characteristics (cf.Baugh & Cable 1993, but especially theLinguistic Atlas of Late MiddleEnglish) are lack of palatalization as inkirk ‘church’; retention of-a- over-o-, as inmast rather thanmost; and, loss of verbal inflection. In 1.4, Idemonstrate that the northern Old English texts use ‘self’ less often thansouthern ones, but the ones used are more often reflexive. In the currentsection, I examine some northern Middle English texts, namelyCursorMundi andThe York Plays, to see if that is also the case there.


Cursor Mundi, hence CM, is a text of which several manuscripts exist.Morris’ (1874–1893) edition has 2 Northern and 2 Midlands versions andhence these can be compared as to the use of ‘self’. The Cotton Vespas. Aiii is a northern text (e.g. retention of-andeand of-a-; no palatalization; theuse ofat ‘to’ and qu- for wh-). It is from the early part of the 14th century,i.e. between Layamon andGawain, and is written in 3 different hands. Inwhat follows, I examine some of the 12,000 of the total of almost 30,000lines; all 12,000 are written by the same scribe (cf. Hupe 1893).

As to the morphological shape, the pronoun and ‘self’ are not (always)a unit, as (141) and (142) show. The use varies considerably between Cottonand the other manuscripts. In the other northern version, the Göttingen MS,himselfappears instead. Sometimes, in Cotton,hymselfis used, whereasheis used in the more southern Fairfax and Trinity andhim selfin Göttingen:

(141) CM, Cotton, 131At him self first i sette mi mercon him self first I put my mark

(142) CM, Cotton, 278Him self had neuer bigining‘He had no beginning, i.e. he was not created.’

In Cotton, the use is least grammaticalized in that ‘self’ is not obligatorilylinked to a pronoun. The emphatic ‘self’, as in (143), is replaced byhe him-seluenin the Fairfax MS,him seluenin Göttingen, andhim self in Trinity;sometimes, it is replaced in Fairfax by a genitive form of the pronoun:

(143) CM, Cotton, 311–2Or for-þi þat he self wroght All thingesor therefore that he self made all things

The person split is very noticeable. Most ‘selfs’ are connected with a thirdperson, and the only first or second persons that occur with ‘self’ areemphatic, as in (144):

(144) CM, Cotton, 876þiself þou wite þi wa, i-wis‘You yourself know your woe, certainly.’


However, there seem to be relatively few reflexives in this text, also withsimple pronouns. In one passage, given as (145), 4 occur but this is unchar-acteristic (even though the other 3 versions have the same construction):

(145) CM, Cotton, 860–7He went to hidehim al-son; / He wend to hidehim amang þa tres, … /Al for noghthim hide adam, … / I and miwif, vs Šode to hide‘He went to hide himself immediately; he went to hide among the trees,…, in vain he hid himself, …, My wife and me went to hide ourselves.’

As to the function, in the first 12,000 lines forms with ‘self’ functionemphatically around 50 times, as in (143), 8 times as subject, as in (141), 5times as direct object, as in (146), 3 times as indirect object, and 5 times asprepositional object, as in (147). This is quite different from the Old Englishnorthern use:

(146) CM, Cotton, 2829Bot þai ne wild þam self for-farebut they not want them self destroy

(147) CM, Cotton, 386þat in þam self þaire seding berewho in them self their seeds bear

The York Plays(Beadle 1982; Concordance by Kinneavy 1986), performedfrom the 14th to the 16th century, survive in a single manuscript from thelate 15th century. The manuscript is northern in a number of ways, e.g. the-andeending on the present participle. In this text, ‘self’ and the pronoun arealways written as a unit and the ‘modern’ forms of the pronouns are used.However, even though the morphological shape is ‘modern’, the endings anduses are not. The ending is zero or-e, and the emphatic use predominates, asin (148), and the use of the complex reflexive as subject, as in (149) iscommon (something I come back to in the next section). Possible reflexivesare listed in (150) and (151). Out of the 35 first person singular instances, 10are emphatic, 10 are subjects, 7 are prepositional objects, 7 direct objects(not all reflexive), 1 is an indirect object. There are 29 third person singularmasculineforms and 9 are emphatic, 5 are subjects, 9 direct objects, 1indirect object, and 5 prepositional objects. However, the objects are (again)not always reflexive, as (152) shows, where a second person is meant to besitting:


(148) York, 10.31Becausehirselfe sho was barrane‘Because she herself was barren.’

(149) York, 24.32Hirselffff may noŠt gaynesaie it þan‘She may not contradict it then.’

(150) York, 32.309To spillemyselffffe nowe wille I spede‘To destroy myself, I now will hasten.’

(151) York 44.53myselue nowe I see‘I now see myself.’

(152) York, 44.11There to sitte withhymselue, all solas to see‘To sit there by himself, to see comfort.’

Regular pronouns continue to be used reflexively in all persons, e.g. (153) to(155). There are, however, fewer instances with third person:

(153) York, 5.15I wol me hye‘I want to hasten myself.’

(154) York, 5.135I wolde hydeme‘I wanted to hide myself.’

(155) York, 165Than will he schappehym vs to shende‘Then he wants to shape himself to shame us.’

Thus, even though the late 15th centuryYork Plays displays ‘modern’morphology (i.e. a morphological fusion between the pronoun andself) anda regular use of special reflexive pronouns, such as in (150), with allpersons, the emphatic use of ‘self’ still dominates. The reflexive use ofsimple third person pronouns becomes rare, however.

Examining northern texts 50 to 75 years younger than the Midlands textsof Layamon and the Katherine Group discussed in 2.1 shows that reflexive‘self’ is less developed and that, apart from the frequent emphatic use of ‘self’alone or in combination with a pronoun, there is an interesting construction,


as in (141) and (142), which is quite frequent. It is unlikely that these areinstances of ellipted subjects because subjects are emphasized withself, as in(143), not withhim self, as in (141). I come back to this use below. In CM,the pronoun and ‘self’ have not grammaticalized into one form yet, but thirdperson ‘him self’ is used in all types of position (unlike inGawain). Hence,as seen in the two versions of Layamon, there is an indirect correlationbetween morphological form and syntactic function. In York, first andsecond person specially marked reflexives occur as well as third person ones,in all positions.

2.5 Changing features and the grammaticalization of ‘self’

In this section, I explain (a) why simple pronouns continue to be usedreflexively (in 2.5.1), (b) the changes concerning ‘self’ (in 2.5.2.1), and (c)why the new forms are introduced in oblique position (in 2.5.2.2).

2.5.1 Features and reflexives

In Chapter 1, I have proposed that the reflexive use of simple pronouns in(Early) Old English is in accordance with the Chain Condition since the Case(to the object) is mainly inherent and this would render an element non-referential. In Late Old English and Middle English, the situation is differ-ent. If Case in Middle English were inherent as well, i.e. tied toθ-markingrather than to structural position, the pronoun could form a Chain with theantecedent without violating Reinhart & Reuland’s (1993) Chain Condition;it would also not need to be marked as in Koster (1993) because it wouldnot check its (inherent) Case in SpecAgrO (i.e. the position where structuralobject Case features are checked). However, the existence of inherent Casein Middle English cannot be demonstrated. On the contrary, in Chapter 5 andin van Gelderen (1993: 171ff, 1996b), it is argued that the Old Englishsystem of inherent Case is replaced by structural Case around 1250 becausethat is when morphological and thematic Case marking disappear. Thus, inthe mid-fourteenth-centuryGawain, the direct object is not assigned morpho-logically inherent Case. If this is true, Case to the object is checked in AgrO(as in Kayne 1989), or under structural government by the verb, and apronoun should not be able to function reflexively.


An added problem with the above account is that even though the thirdperson is the last to lose inherent Case, it is the first to develop specialreflexives. Thus, Case cannot be directly responsible for all the changes withthe reflexive. In van Gelderen (1999), it is argued that pronouns haveInterpretableφ-features in Old and Early Middle English and can thereforecontinue to function anaphorically even though they lose inherent Case.Here, I argue that the rise of Uninterpretable features is reflected in the lossof morphology and the introduction of functional categories (FCs) forchecking. If first and second person pronouns start, by Late Old English, tocheck Case in FCs (cf. Chapters 5 and 6), it is unlikely that they are Inter-pretable by Early Middle English. Thus, the Chain Condition depends notonly on feature interpretability, but also on unspecified features as inReinhart & Reuland’s (1993) original definition: certain pronouns functionreflexively because they have either inherent Case or un(der)specifiedφ-features. When first and second person pronouns lose inherent Case, theirφ-features are un(der)specified (evident from pro-drop, etc.) and hence, theycontinue to function reflexively. The underspecified nature of pronouns (seealso Rizzi 1990 and Woolford 1999 who examine the lack of agreement ofreflexives) leads to Uninterpretability. Thus, underspecification of featuresfor Binding does not mean Uninterpretablity; the reverse is true, however.Third person pronouns are more specified (perhaps for deixis, as expressedin (170) below) and once they lose inherent Case, they stop functioningreflexively. Initially, the reason special reflexives are introduced is not oneof necessity, otherwise they would be introduced in direct object position.Their introduction is a result of the way in which the reflexives grammatical-ize. I will come back to that in 2.5.2.

The idea about the difference in feature strength is ‘translatable’ indifferent frameworks. Thus, Givon (1983) argues for a difference betweennull subjects, pronouns, and full NPs in terms of topic shift possibilities.Arguing that first and second person features are weaker or less specifiedmeans that they would serve less as topic shifters than third person ones.This is borne out by the pro-drop data in Chapter 3 below, namely the factthat third person pronouns but not first and second person ones are droppedin Old English. Evidence for the fact that third person pronouns are deicti-cally specified whereas first and second ones are not is that when thirdperson pronouns develop in languages, they are synonymous with (or derivedfrom) demonstrative and/or relative pronouns, as Greenberg (1986: xx)


mentions. In addition, cross-linguistically, only third person pronouns canhave three deictic distinctions. In (167) to (169) below, I provide someevidence from English.

Structural Case, i.e. Uninterpretable Case, renders a pronoun referential(probably because its features need to be checked in an FC). Inherent Case,beingθ-related, is Interpretable and does not need to be checked. The samecan be argued for specifiedφ-features and deictic features. In older English,first and second person pronouns have fewer fully markedφ-features (e.g.for number and gender) and can therefore continue to function anaphoricallyeven though they lose inherent Case; third person pronouns, on the otherhand, have fully markedφ-features and when inherent Case disappears, theycease to function anaphorically. The difference betweenGawain andChaucer shows that the features of second person become specified beforethose of first person.

2.5.1.1Dutch unspecified pronounsIn the previous subsection, I argue that if first and second person pronounsare underspecified for person features, the reflexive facts in Middle Englishfollow. In this subsection, I argue that a similar situation exists in Dutch.The pronouns involved are weak pronouns (Koster 1978, and Cardinaletti &Starke 1996),9 but first and second person are different from third in reflex-ive behavior although not positionally.

The unspecified nature may show up in prosodic features. Dutch is agood instance of a language in which phonologically reduced elementsfunction anaphorically, e.g. in (156) and (157). Phonologically reduced thirdperson is never sufficiently reduced to become unspecified for Binding, as(158) shows. In (156) and (157),me and je can be coindexed (or formchains) with their antecedents, but third person’m in (158) cannot:

(156) Ik waste meI washed me

(157) Jij waste jeYou washed you

9. Cardinaletti & Starke (1996) discuss certain pronouns as ‘deficient’. They provide structuralreasons, e.g. non-occurrence in coordination, for when a pronoun is ‘weak’. They do notactually talk about the feature content.


(158) *Hij waste ’m (hij and ’m coindexed)He washed him

The pronounsme, je and’m are morphologically weak and are referred to asweak pronouns since, for instance, they cannot be used in coordination. Everaert(1986: 206) formulates this observation in terms of phonological unmarked-ness. The strong counterparts aremij, jou andhem. When the latter forms areused, (156) and (157) become ungrammatical (and (158) remains so):

(159) *Ik waste mijI washed me

(160) *Jij waste jouYou washed you

(161) *Hij waste hem (hij andhemcoindexed)He washed him

Reuland (p.c) reports that (159) is grammatical for him but that (160) is not:second person Dutchjou is fully specified, whereas first personmij is not.The reason may be that it is hardest to discern number in first persons, asBenveniste (1966) and others have argued.

Even thoughme in (156) functions anaphorically, it also functions as aregular pronoun, as in (162). It is, however, hard to use it outside the directdomain of the verb as (163) shows:

(162) Karel zagme‘Karel saw me.’

(163) *Karel gaf het gisteren aanme‘Karel gave it yesterday to me.’

So, when the pronominal form is unspecified, it seems to need verbalgovernment in Dutch. In the other positions, it needs to be reinforced byusingmij. In Chaucer, it is possible to reinforcemewith ‘self’, in reflexivecontexts. Sentence (164) shows the same is grammatical in Dutch:

(164) Ik zei het gisteren nog tegenmezelfI said it yesterday still to myself‘I told myself yesterday.’

In French, the ‘weak’ first and second person pronouns,me ‘me’ and te‘you’, can be used reflexively, but third personle ‘him’ cannot. Thus,


Middle English, Dutch, and French have a set of pronouns underspecified inφ-features. Kayne (1998) argues that, in French, it is the underspecificationof meand te for number makes them reflexive. At the end of this chapter, Ishow contra Kayne that, in Modern English,me, usand you (singular andplural), but not him, her or them, continue to be used reflexively. Thisindicates it is person not number that is responsible.

It is interesting that the grammatical form used for third person inDutch constructions such as (161) iszich and that this form in Yiddish, i.e.zikh, is generalized across the paradigm, i.e. used for first, second and thirdperson. I assume the reason is that, in Yiddish,zikh is unspecified forφ-features. Taraldsen (1996: 201) claims thatsig/segin Icelandic and Faroeseis unspecified for number. What these forms show is that anaphors are typicallyless specified than pronouns and that reflexively used pronouns lack certainfeatures as well. Burzio (1991: 87) puts it in the following terms: “An NPwith no features is an Anaphor”. He makes it clear (p. 96) that what is meantby no features is referential rather than morphological underspecification.

So far, to explain the use of anaphoric pronouns in Dutch, I havedefended the argument here that pronouns are non-referential if underspecif-ied in some way. I now turn to Old English and show that a similar personsplit can be defended.

2.5.1.2Old English clitics and their structureAs noted in 0.3, Old English pronouns have often been argued to be clitics,e.g. in Traugott (1972) and van Kemenade (1987). The argument in favor ofthis is that they occur in fixed positions. In (36) to (40) of Chapter 0, thepronominal subject generally occurs sentence initially or right adjacent to theC(omplementizer), preposed verb, or negation. The pronominal objectfollows the subject or, if the subject is absent, follows the position where thesubject would have been. InBeowulf, the position of first and second personpronouns, as in (38) of 0.3, is no different from third person ones, as in(40).

If pronouns are clitics, they are less heavy prosodically. Alliterationprovides evidence for phonological/prosodic weight and clitics would not beexpected to participate in alliteration. Alliteration inBeowulf follows strictrules. For example, each line consists of two half lines and each half line hastwo stresses. The first sound of the stressed syllable of the second half linemust be the same as that of either the first and/or the second stressed word


of the first half line. If third person is (already inBeowulf) more specified,one would expect it to participate in alliteration. I find 5 sentences wherehine is in the environment of other words starting inh- only one of which isa possible but not definite case of alliteration, namely (165); withhim, thereare many cases but again the several possible instances of alliteration areones wherehim occurs in the first half line together with otherh-initialwords, as in (166):

(165) Beo 963Ic hine hrædlice heardan clammumI him quickly hard grasp‘(I wanted) to hold him quickly in a hard grasp.’

(166) Beo 1330Wearð him on Heorote to handbananbecame him in Heorot to slayer‘He was slain in Heorot.’

With me, there are only 2 sentences with words starting inm-, but havingmestressed would violate the pattern.10 Thus, it is possible that third personsin Beowulfare more stressed than first and second and participate in allitera-tion but the evidence is not conclusive.

If third person is different, there has to be an explanation for this. In thissection, I suggest that the explanation lies in the deictic character. In Old andMiddle English, there is a demonstrative use of the third person pronoun (cf.Mustanoja 1960: 135–6) that may shed some light on the difference inperson. This use is not found inBeowulf but is found regularly in OldEnglish, for instance, in Alfred, as in (167). It persists at least to the time ofChaucer, as in (168) (and continues in many dialects):

(167) Alfred, Orosius, 22.4–5Andhe Ninus Soroastrem Bactriana cyning, …, he hine oferwann‘And Ninus was successful over the Zoroaster king of the Bactriani.’

10. None of the 16 instances ofmecalliterate, but in one instance (line 2430),mecoccurs inpostverbal position, which is untypical of clitics. Since the Case ofmecis clearly inherent, i.e.Interpretable, this may be evidence that Interpretable features are heavier prosodically.


(168) Chaucer, Man of Law’s Tale, 939–40Who yaf Judith corage or hardynesse / To sleenhym Olofernus in histente‘Who gave Judith courage and daring / to slay that Olofernus in histent.’

In addition, in both Old and Middle English, a third person pronoun is usedas a demonstrative, as in (169):

(169) CM, Cotton, 16161–2For he and he had samen ben forwit selcuth wrath‘Because that one (Pilate) and that one (Herod) had been togetherpreviously in strange wrath.’

Einenkel (1916: 128) also suggests that the demonstrative can replace thepronoun in ME: “Die formellen Abweichungen der me. Personalien von denae. ergeben sich in der Hauptsache daraus, das schon in ae. Zeit … das(kürzere) Demonstrativ für das Personale eintreten kann”.

Sentences such as (167) to (169) suggest a structure as in (170), wherethe D(eterminer) expresses the demonstrative force. Thus,he can be eitherbase generated in D, as in (167) to (169), or moved as in the regular cases.This structure would predict that third person is prosodically ‘stronger’ thanfirst and second, since the latter are not used demonstratively and a structuresuch as (171) might be more appropriate:

(170)

D′

DP

D NP

Nhe

(171) NP

Nþu


As is well-known, throughout Late Old and Middle English third personpronouns become morphologically specified for number and gender. In OldEnglish, the formhe/o can be masculine, feminine, neuter, singular andplural. In Middle English, a special feminine singular form is introduced(she) as well as a special plural one (they). The number and gender specifica-tions may have resulted from the third person pronoun moving to a Dposition. Thus, structures (170) and (171) indicate that third person pronounshave definite features whereas other (pro)nouns do not.

In brief, I argue that first and second person pronouns are less specifiedin terms of features and therefore continue to serve as anaphors. Languagessuch as Dutch have similar pronouns and, as in Middle English, these occurpreferably as direct objects (licensed under government). Additional evidencefor the claim of weakφ-features will be given in the next chapters, namely,the lack of pro-drop and the loss of verbal agreement in first and secondpersons. Third person is specified and after its Case becomes structural, itceases to function anaphorically.

2.5.2 The grammaticalization of ‘himself ’

I will now argue (a) that ‘self’ changes from adjective to noun as thepronoun becomes a D, and (b) unlike the demise of the anaphoric simplepronoun, the introduction of ‘self’ marked pronouns in oblique positions canbe explained by the loss of inherent Case and is not related to the strengthof φ-features. Thus, I use the Chain Condition, rather than the Condition onPredicates as in Reinhart & Reuland, to explain the use of specially markedreflexive pronouns. The reason the latter condition can be reduced to theformer is that the features of ‘self’ are unspecified and that ‘self’ becomesthe head of the pronoun in Middle English, as in (174) below. In 2.5.2.1, Iprovide evidence for the change from (170) to (174) as a structure for thereflexive compound. Then, in 2.5.2.2, I explain why first and second personcompounds do not occur in direct object positions.

2.5.2.1The grammaticalization of ‘self ’As mentioned in connection with Layamon’sBrut, around 1250, the adjecti-val nature ofself is lost, even though the last instances as an adjectivemeaning ‘same’ continue till around 1600 (according to theOED). The


reason for the change, I argue is that since a third person is more deictic, itmoves to D, as in (170), and this causes ‘self’ to change to N. Hence, ‘self’connected with third person changes before those connected to first andsecond person pronouns. This means that the structure of ‘self’ changes frommodifying adjective to nominal head,11 as in (172), and that of the pronounfrom head to determiner. Consequently, the features on ‘self’ will becomethe determining ones:

(172) [ NP[ him] AP[ self]] → DP[ his/m NP[ self]],

or, if OE has a DP and N-to-D movement:

DP[ him NP[ [ t] AP[ self]]] → DP[ his/m NP[ self]]

Tree structures that indicate the changes are given in (173) and (174), with(173) showing the apposition structure I use in 1.1. I ignore the distinctionmade in (170) and (171) regarding person for now. I also disregard whetherthe pronoun in (173) has the status of head or of maximal projection (seeCardinaletti & Starke 1996 on Modern Germanic languages):

(173) Old EnglishDP DP

D DNPNhim

NP

Aself

N–

...

(174) Middle and Modern EnglishDP

D

him

NPNself

In Old English, articles are not generally used (cf. e.g. Mitchell & Robinson1964 [1986]: 106–7) and it might be the case that there is not always a DP

11. There is a debate whetherself is used as a noun in Old English, but if it is, its use islimited (cf. Penning 1875; Mustanoja 1960; Mitchell 1979, 1985; Keenan 1994).


(or perhaps only with third person pronouns, cf. previous section). Due to theintroduction of articles and the loss of adjectival inflection, (174) might haveseemed a more likely structure for a learner of English (cf. also Anagnosto-poulou & Everaert 1997: 13). In (174), N is unspecified for gender andperson (and occasionally for number) and can function anaphorically; in(173), the features of the compound are determined byhim and are fullyspecified. A curious fact is that inBeowulf, although not in other OldEnglish texts, the adjective ‘self’ has definite inflection when it modifies athird person (singular). Definite inflection is used after definite articles, as inse goda‘the good (one)’. Third person pronouns in Beowulf could thereforehave a structure as in (174) where the third person pronoun checks definitefeatures in D. Other (pro)nouns are accompanied by indefinite forms andprobably lack a DP, as in (171) above.

I first provide some evidence for (174) and then argue that third personis the first to change. The evidence that Middle and Modern English have astructure such as (174) is many-fold. (a)Selfstarts to be used as a noun, asin (175), in Early Middle English, and this use persists today, as (176)shows. (b)Self/selveshas number in most varieties, and (c)Self is usedindependently, as in (177), and the pronominal part is not, as (178) shows.(d) Verbal agreement with first and second persons is third person, as in(178), i.e. the verb has default agreement, and (e)self in headlines, eventhough most often used to refer to third person, as in (177), can also refer tofirst and second (see (180) and (181)). A headline to a ‘letter to the editor’appeared withself referring to a second person, as in (180). The headline in(181) is made up but acceptable. These data indicate thatself is the headwithout specific features except number:

(175) CM, Cotton, 12248Or elles goddsself es he‘Or otherwise he is God’s self.’

(176) A secretself; my betterself.

(177) Female coffee drinkers less likely to killselves, study says.

(178) *Female coffee drinkers less likely to killthem.

(179) Myselfdoesn’t want to do that.

(180) Learn English to betterself.

(181) Suspect threatens: I(’ll) killself.


Keenan (1994: 27) disagrees with this view of the change, i.e. thatself is anoun, which he sees as originating in Farr (1905). His arguments are two-fold: (a) lack of motivation for an adjective to change to a noun, and (b) anumber of distributional peculiarities if ‘self’ were a noun, such as non-occurrence as a possessive or with certain determiners. As to the first,adjectives such asrich and poor certainly can be used as nouns, so whyshould ‘self’ not? As I mentioned above, it is not the case that the adjectivaluse of ‘self’ dies out abruptly. Certainly up to 1600(OED), it is used as anadjective. So it is only in structures such as (174) that it is reanalyzed as anoun. Regarding the second objection, when elements grammaticalize fromsay V to auxiliary, this does not happen from one day to the next. It is agradual process by which the one element gradually acquires more character-istics of the other. The same would be the case with ‘self’. I spell out someof the arguments for ‘self’ as a noun in more detail.

When did the change from (173) to (174) occur? Constructions such as(175) are listed by theOED as starting in 1200. Sentence (59) above, fromthe early part of the 13th century, is a possible instance, especially since theother version substitutes ‘flesh’ for ‘self’.

Regarding (179), these start to occur with third person subjects as earlyas the 12th century, as shown in (182) and (183) from the (12th century)History of the Holy Rood Tree(HRT). It is the earliest text in the HelsinkiCorpus to have this construction. First and second person pronouns, as in(184), lag behind sinceHavelok is from the late 13th century. Some four-teenth-century examples are mentioned above, namely (142) and (149).Keenan (1994: 29) gives instances of thirteenth-century use of ‘reflexives’ insubject position and argues they are not emphatics. This indicates that theCase on the reflexive is not accusative. He cites the later version of Laya-mon as often havinghimselfin subject position, as in (50) above:

(182) HRT, 2.18–9Ða sende he forð all þæt ferd him sylf þer wunode oð ða niŠoðan tidþæs dæŠes þa Šyrdæn up dealf‘Then he sent forth all the people and himself remained there until theninth hour of the day and dug up the rods.’

(183) HRT, 24.32–3 wende þahimsylf ðerto‘and himself went there.’


(184) Havelok, 56/2043 (Smithers 1987 edition)Miself shal dubbe him to knith‘Myself shall make him to knight.’

Thus, third personhimself can be used in many different Case positions,whereasmiself can only be used in oblique position. Assuming that theseconstructions do not involve emphatics but subjects, they could be an indicationthat ‘self’ is the head of the DP. The text from which (182) and (183) aretaken, as seen above, is rather ‘conservative’ as far as reflexives are con-cerned (which is to be expected from this early a text) and perhaps thechange to (174) starts in (182) and (183) rather than in reflexive contexts.

The early examples do not clearly indicate number on the verb, but thelater examples do. Visser (1963; 95ff.) provides instances from after 1400which show that the reflexively-marked subject can either agree or be thirdperson. TheOEDgives some interesting examples with third person endings,as in (185) and (186). The later version of Layamon may have an instanceas well, but the text is damaged:

(185) Chaucer, Wife of Bath’s Prologue, 175myself have ben the whippe‘I have been the whip.’

(186) Shakespeare, Titus IV, iv, 74My selfe hath often heard them say

(187) Layamon, Otho 2988Heom … (lf nom)en hire lond‘They (themselves) took their land.’

This means ‘self’ used with first and second person pronouns took its timereanalyzing to (174) where ‘self’ is the head.

Spies (1897: 190–1) mentions many more examples from the 15th and16th centuries, among which some from thePaston Letters. In ModernEnglish,himselfand herselfcan on occasion be found in subject position.With first and second person, this is harder. However, if a speaker is askedto select an ending, the verbal meaning she or he will choose the thirdperson, as in (188), indicating that the appropriate person and nominativeCase features are not connected withmyselfandyourself, even though theypresumably check the Case:


(188) Myselfhas/*havedone that already.

There is another difference between first and second person reflexives on theone hand and third person ones on the other related to Case: the former havegenitive pronouns and the latter have accusative forms. This difference iswell-known but not well accounted for. One could argue that since ‘him’ hasa deictic function, it is a demonstrative inflected for Case. First and secondperson might have been seen as adjectives to the nominalself head. Morelikely is thathimselfgrammaticalized in Late Old English beforeselfwas anoun, but thatmyselfandthyselfgrammaticalize after. Mustanoja (1960: 116)explains it as a phonological change: “The transition frommeandþe to miandþi is in fact a phonological process”.

2.5.2.2Direct versus oblique object positionHaving argued for (174) and for its introduction with third person earlierthan with first person, I now turn to the reasons why a form reinforced with‘self’ is first used in prepositional object (i.e. oblique) position. There areseveral reasons for arguing thathimself is compatible with structural Case(once ‘self’ is the head, this head lacksφ-features and can therefore functionanaphorically), whereasmyselfand thyself are not. (a) Oncehimself is acompound, there is no variation in the Case of the pronominal part, whereasthere is for first and second. (b) The early occurrence ofhimself in subjectposition, as in (182), indicates the Case is structural. (c) The fact thathimselfoccurs regularly inBrut, but hineselfdoes not, indicates that once the formis grammaticalized into a pronoun, only the form associated with structuralCase (i.e.him not hine) appears in that complex. Thus, the third person formhimselfcan check structural Case due to the pronominal part, i.e.him.

A note on the formhisself is necessary. One of the two Midlandsversions ofCursor Mundi(OED entry for himself), namely the Fairfax ms,hashis-self/uen, but both occurrences that theOEDgives are emphatic ratherthan reflexive. The ones that the Helsinki Corpus lists are few and only fromOld English, as in (93) in Chapter 1.Theirselvesis infrequent as well, andrestricted to northern texts such asCursor Mundi. No forms are present inthe Helsinki Corpus. In Modern English dialects, paradigm levelling is takingplace andhisself is used alongsidemyself(cf. Edwards & Weltens 1984).There are also dialects where the levelling is in the opposite direction,namely through the use ofmeself.


In a Minimalist framework, Modern Englishhimselfhas (Uninterpretable)Case features that are attached to it. In Middle English, the Case on thepronominal part is not clear. As mentioned, at the time the change in (172)is taking place, the form changes from ‘me self’ to ‘miself’ in many instances.For instance, in the earlier, Caligula edition ofBrut, there are 16mes followedby ‘self’, as in (189) and in (190). In the later, Otho version,mehas beenreplaced bymi, as in (191) and (192), the counterparts to (189) and (190):

(189) Caligula 4165 me sulfne heo þencheð quellenand me self- they think kill

(190) Caligula 11309her ich sette þe an hond.me seoluen and mi kine-londhere I place you in hand. myself and my kingly lands

(191) Otho 4165and þench(eþ) mi-seolue cwelleand (they) think me kill

(192) Otho 11309ich sette þe her an hond.mi-seolfe and myn kinelond…

If the Case ofmiself, thiself, and early on evenhimself is not structural, itcannot be checked in AgrO. In first and second person, the Case on thepronominal part is more clearly genitive than accusative and hence thechecking in SpecAgrO is completely impossible inGawain. Spies(1897: 145ff.) notes many cases wheremy is used forme and vice versa;thou is mixed with the; you is used foryour and vice versa. However, nocases are mentioned where third person pronouns are confused in the sameway. This Case uncertainty provides a possible account for the appearance ofspecially marked reflexives exclusively as objects to prepositions: this is anoblique position in which they can check Case.

The unclarity in terms of Case provides a possible account for the appear-ance of specially marked reflexives exclusively as objects to prepositions: thisis a position where they can check non-structural Case. For instance, inGawain and the Green Knight, there is no evidence of preposition strandingwith the prepositional object losing the objective Case. Since first and secondperson ‘self’-marked anaphors only occur in these positions, one could arguethat this is the only position they can check (inherent) Case. In Modern


English, the situation is not unclear: anaphors such ashimself do checkstructural Case (even though they are anaphors due to the status ofself).12

In conclusion, older stages of English are very different from ModernEnglish as far as reflexives are concerned. In Old English, simple pronounsare used anaphorically in all environments. This can be explained using theinsight that Case andφ-features may render a pronoun into an anaphor, i.e.an element not fully specified structurally. In Late Old English, a reanalysisof (173) to (174) takes place because the third person features are moredeictic, hence more specified. This accounts for the person split, both withsimple pronouns used anaphorically as well as with ‘self’ combinations. InMiddle English, the situation is more complex. Specially marked anaphorsare introduced around 1250, but their distribution is unexpected: they occuroutside the immediate domain whereas simple pronouns are used in directobject position. I argue that the reason for the unexpected distribution mustbe sought in the change of ‘self’ from adjective to noun and its not beingconnected with (Uninterpretable) accusative Case features that must bechecked in the structural position (i.e. SpecAgrO).

2.6 Later developments: Strengthening of the reflexive and loss ofinterpretable features

As is well-known and explained in the introductory chapter, in ModernEnglish the simple pronoun is (generally) not reflexive. In 2.6.1, I provideinstances of reflexive use of simple pronouns and ‘self’ compounds after theMiddle English period. I will argue that the weakly specified features start tobe checked in FCs throughout Middle English (not consistently though),which makes them structurally specified and, hence, unable to function re-flexively. This means that there is a difference between specifiedφ-features(relevant for Binding) and Uninterpretable features (relevant for checking).Even though both render an item referential, they are not identical. This canbe shown from a construction, discussed in 2.6.2, that occurs at the time ofChaucer where certain pronouns are un(der)specified but their features can beshown to be used twice, indicating that they are Interpretable.

12. As mentioned before, Reuland & Reinhart (1995: 255ff.) argue that English anaphors withself, even though they are assigned accusative Case, lack a specification for Case due to thefact that alternating forms such asheselfdo not exist.


2.6.1 Later reflexives

In Middle English the special reflexive occurs in oblique position before itoccurs in direct object position. This is exactly the reverse of the ModernEnglish situation. Keenan’s (1994: Appendix) figures regarding the functionof the ‘self’ pronoun show that, except for Early Old English (cf. Sec-tion 1.3), the prepositional object is more often accompanied by ‘self’ thanthe direct object up to 1500, at which point ‘self’ becomes more prevalentwith direct objects. I provide an instance of a text that shows the reversalfrom the Middle to the Modern English situation, namelyThe Paston Letters.

The Paston Lettersdemonstrate that, in the 15th century, the simplepronoun ceases to be used reflexively except with what one could callinherently reflexive verbs such asrepent. These verbs occur throughout thehistory of English. As mentioned above, I assume that inherently reflexiveverbs are those whose object must be reflexive. Everaert (1986: 99ff.) showsthat in Dutch these verbs do not assign structural Case. Reinhart & Reuland(1993: 663) assume that a predicate is reflexive-marked if it is lexicallyreflexive. Hence, a simple pronoun can be coindexed with the subjectwithout rendering an ill-formed predicate. The Chain Condition accounts forit as well if one argues that the Case assigned by reflexive verbs is inherentand does not fully specify the pronoun. I assume the latter analysis. Check-ing more than a hundred instances ofhym in the immediate environment ofhe, I find 6 reflexivehyms, namely (193) to (197):

(193) PL #310 (1478)he repentydhym‘He regretted.’

(194) PL #129 (1448)he xuld repenthym‘He should regret.’

(195) PL #143 (1452)he shall repentehym

(196) PL #143 (1452)for he shall ell repenthym

(197) PL #165 (1461)he schold bryng wythhym


The several hundred instances ofI in the immediate environment ofmeinvolve almost exclusively the verbrecommandand are formulaic expres-sions, expected in letters.

Reflexives such ashymselfandhym-selfare used in all possible environ-ments, for instance in (198) and (199). Regular pronouns are used in obliqueposition, as in (200):

(198) PL #14 (1445)ho so euer schuld dwelle at Paston shulde have nede to conne defendehymselfe‘whoever should dwell at Paston should be able to defend himself.’

(199) PL #116 (1461)fore he is not bold y-now to put forthehym-selfe‘because he is not bold enough to put forth himself.’

(200) PL #53 (1458)I can not take vpponme‘I can’t take upon me.’

Thus, the situation in thePaston Lettersis close to that in Modern English. TheCase features (Chapters 5 and 6) are never inherent and if these and the personfeatures are Uninterpretable (as they are in Modern English, cf. 0.1), the simplepronoun cannot be used reflexively when it is an argument. Only in the caseof (200), where Case is oblique, can the simple pronoun function reflexively.Reflexive forms, as in (198), are grammatical because ‘self’ renders the formnon-referential (no person features and presumably no Case).

The situation in later texts is not yet always this way. This is also shownin Peitsara (1997: 288) who analyses the difference between simple and‘self’-marked reflexives using the Helsinki Corpus. For instance, for theperiod from 1420–1500, she calculates that 72% of reflexive constructionsuse the simple pronoun. Only after 1500 does the ‘self’-marked reflexivebecome predominant. Visser (pp. 435–7) notes that the choice between asimple pronoun and a reflexive seems free. I argue the reason is that featuresare not yet completely Uninterpretable (cf. Chapter 4 also). In the First FolioEdition (1623) of Shakespeare’s2 King Henry IV, simple pronouns, as in(201) to (204), as well as specially marked ones, as in (205) to (208),function anaphorically in both direct and indirect domains. There are 8instances ofhimselfe, as in (207) and (208) (3 emphatics, 4 direct objects,and 1 prepositional object) and 1 form ofhimself:


(201) 2 Henry IV, I, ii, 157He that buckleshim in my belt.

(202) Idem, II, ii, 124(sayes he) that takes vponhim not to conceiue?

(203) Idem, II, iv, 390I feelememuch to blame.

(204) Idem, IV, i, 60I take not onmehere as a Physician.

(205) Idem, I, iii, 96That thou prouok’stthy selfeto cast him vp.

(206) Idem, II, iv, 303I dressemy selfehandsome.

(207) Idem, V, i, 50An honest man sir, is able to speake forhimselfe.

(208) Idem, II, ii, 119as hee hath occasion to namehimselfe.

Notice thatmy and thy are separate from ‘self’ whereashimselfe is not.There are 28 instances of independentselfe, as in (205) and (206), and all ofthese involve first, second, or neuter pronouns. The 4 forms of independentseluesalso involve first or second person pronouns. All instances of thirdperson pronouns are a unit, as in (207) and (208). Checking the entire FirstFolio Edition, I find only 2 forms ofmyselfebut hundreds ofmy selfe; withsecond person and third neuter and feminine, all instances are morphological-ly separate. With third person masculine, however, there are 4 instances ofhimself, 417 ofhimselfe, and 7 ofhim-selfe, but there is never an instance ofhim selfe. This indicates that even in Shakespeare, where simple pronounsare still used reflexively, the third person (masculine) ones are more gram-maticalized. The total number ofself is 14, of selfe1405, and ofselfes1.Keenan (1994: Appendix) lists Shakespeare as using ‘self’-compounds inroughly 80% of both direct and indirect object reflexives. He does mention(p. 33) that a high proportion are first and second person though, indicatingthat perhaps it is those features that remain unspecified. Checking thenumber of ‘selfs’ that complement the different pronouns, there is nodiscrepancy: first person pronouns (singular and plural) in1 Henry IV, forexample, seem roughly as frequent as the others.


A century and a half after Shakespeare, there is no trace of the reflexiveuse of simple pronouns in the texts I examine. ‘Self’ forms are used exclu-sively in, for instance, Hume’sEnquiry Concerning Human Understanding(1748). A typical instance is (209):

(209) Hume,EnquiryXII, ii, 128And though a Pyrrhonian may throwhimselfor others into a momen-tary amazement …

In Austen texts from a century later, the ‘modern’ English situation prevailsand simple pronouns are not used reflexively. This means that simplepronouns are referential for the Chain Condition (through their Uninterpret-able features) and that forms such ashimselfhave unspecified features dueto the status of the head-self, as in (174) above, and are also in accordancewith the Chain Condition.

As mentioned in the previous section, in more recent times, headlineshave started to useself as a reflexive. Very oftenself is used as object,especially tokill , but this is not always the case, as (213) and (214) show. Itis interesting that the number feature remains, as (210) and (211) show:

(210) Bank robbery suspect killsself in store.

(211) Female coffee drinkers less likely to killselves, study says.

(212) Pakistan bishop killsself.

(213) Arson suspect put spotlight onself, police say.

(214) Ex-councilman Tribken checksself into rehab clinic.

One area, mentioned in 0.2, where simple pronouns continue to be usedreflexively in Modern English are instances where the Case assigned is notstraightforwardly structural, as in (200) above, and in (215) to (217). Mostof these, but not all, tend to be first person, which may be an indication thatfirst person is (still) less specified and can function reflexively if the Case isinherent, as in (215) to (217):

(215) I boughtmea nice book.

(216) I saw a snake nearme.

(217) He needshim a dictionary.

Kayne (1998, Section 16) argues that lack of number “is a necessarycondition for anaphoric status” for French and Italian pronouns. However,


the evidence that, even in Modern English, person and not number isresponsible is that first person pluralus, as in (218), also functions reflexive-ly when inherently Case marked. Hence, lack of number is not the reason thepronoun is used reflexively:

(218) We boughtus a nice house.

In short, around 1500, the Middle English situation changes to the ModernEnglish one. This is due to the category change of ‘self’ from adjective tonoun (‘self’ becomes the head without person features) and to the change inperson features of the pronoun from unspecified (but Interpretable) toUninterpretable. In what follows, I provide evidence that unspecified featurescan be Interpretable.

2.6.2 The loss of Interpretable features

Having argued that the unspecified nature of person (and number) features isresponsible for the reflexive functioning of simple pronouns, I turn to theensuing changes and argue that there is evidence that in Chaucer the personfeatures were unspecified but Interpretable. The evidence comes from a veryshort-lived presentative construction.

In Chaucer’s English, constructions such asit am I indicate that theperson features ofit are determined by the postverbal nominal. There are atleast a dozen instances ofit am I in Chaucer, whereas the number of instanc-es with second and third person is very small. This is reminiscent of theperson split seen in Chaucer earlier in this chapter. In a Chomsky (1995)framework, one could argue thatit checks the categorial features, but not theperson ones and that these are attracted from the postverbal NP. The personfeatures of Chaucer’s first person can be attracted (twice as it were) becausethey are Interpretable. First person is the last to acquire Uninterpretablefeatures. Second and third person become Uninterpretable by Chaucer’s timeand cannot be attracted. Other texts do not have this construction and it istherefore hard to check whether this construction and Interpretability are infact related.

In late Old English as in (219) and early Middle English, one can use theconstruction as in Dutch (220) whereic and ik are subjects:


(219) Homilies 220.14Ic hit eomI it am‘It is me.’

(220) … datik het benthat I it am‘It is me.’

Visser provides some instances, e.g. from theOld English Gospel, Juliana,The Book of Margery Kempe, and Towneley. However, checkingBeowulf,Junius MS, Exeter Book, Vercelli, Brut, andGawain, no such instances arefound and the use (at least in written material) must have been very limitedand dies out in the 1400s. In the Helsinki Corpus for the period 950–1050,5 are found. During the fourteenth century, three other constructions appear:(a) It am I; (b) It is I; and (c) It is me. Construction (a) is short-lived (onecentury), but (b) and (c) continue up to the present.

In Chaucerian English (221),it is not specified for person and number(but possibly for Case):

(221) Knight’s Tale 1460For sotheit am nat I‘For truly it is not me.’

In (221), it is unspecified for person, or else the verb form would have beenis. The construction occurs 16 times in the entire Chaucer corpus but neverwith a plural postverbal. In these,it is the subject because, e.g. in (226),itoccurs after the complementizer and before the verb. The verb agrees withthe object in person and number as in (222) to (227):

(222) Shipman’s Tale 214–5“Quy la?” quod he. “Peter,it am I”, Quod she‘“Who there?” said he. “Peter, it is me”, said she.’

(223) Knight’s Tale 1736–7I am thy mortal foo, andit am I that loveth so hoote Emelye the brighte‘I am your mortal enemy, and it is me who loves Emelye the brightpassionately.’

(224) Miller’s Tale 3766“What, who artow?” “It am I Absolon”.


(225) Man of Law’s Tale 1109–10It am I, fader, that in the salte see Was put‘It is me father who had been put in the salt sea.’

(226) Troilus & Criseyde Bk I, 588Wostow naught wel thatit am I, Pandare?‘Do you not know well that it is me.’

There is a similar construction that occurs three times whereit is replacedby that:

(227) Melibee 1089And sire, by youre leve,that am nat I‘And Sire, by your leave, that is not me.’

Three cases as in (228) to (230) occur. The postverbal NPs are all singularand this might be a coincidence but it might also point toit becomingspecified for number and person, as in the later constructionit is I/me:

(228) Man of Law’s Tale 1054He knew wel verraily thatit was she‘He knew well truely that it was her.’

(229) Troilus & Criseyde Bk 5, 1116they seydenit was she‘They said it was her.’

(230) Legend of Good Women 1058And openly biknew thatit was he‘And knew openly that it was him.’

Visser’s (limited number of) examples are first person, except for an exampleof a second person plural.

There is another construction with pronouns other than first personsingular, one where the verb form is a subjunctivebe as in (231) to (233)and it can be questioned as in (234):

(231) Romaunt 36Whether thatit be he or she.

(232) Romaunt 4767But it be theyof yvel lyf.


(233) Romaunt 5029be it he or she.

(234) Parson’s Prologue, 24Be what thou be, …

So, there is a slight tendency for verbs not to be inflected when the post-verbal pronoun is second or third person or plural. It seems thatbeneed notcheck person features withit, hence attraction of third and second person isnot needed sinceit can remain unspecified.

If one assumes thatit is defective, or underspecified,it must havereceived its features from another NP. In earlier frameworks, expletives arereplaced at LF. In the present framework, features of another element areused to take care of the checking. These features do not replace the expletivebut move to the position where feature checking takes place. In (222) to(230), the verb gets person (and possibly number) features from thepostverbal NP through the movement of the latter’s features at LF. Thesefeatures are Interpretable and are not deleted. Thus, Chaucerianit is perhapsless specified than its Dutch counterpart which is specified for third person.

As mentioned, the construction encountered in Chaucer is very shortlived. Kennedy (1915: 58), examining thirteenth century second personssingular, says the use is surprisingly rare. Visser lists the first instance as1338 and the last as 1440 (Visser 1963: 238). There are texts that lackconstructions such as (221), for instance,Gawain and the Green Knightbutin these,it is nevertheless unspecified for number as in (235). This is alsotrue in another text,Piers Plowman B, a contemporary to Chaucer, where(221) does not occur but where (236) and (237) do:

(235) Gawain 280Hit arn aboute on þis bench bot berdlez chylder‘There are but beardless children on this bench.’

(236) Piers Plowman B, 15.321If any peple perfourme that texte.it ar this pore freres‘If any people perform that text, it is these poor friars.’

(237) Piers Plowman B, 13.172“ It is but a Dido,” quod this doctour‘“It is but an old story,” said this teacher.’


Already quite early on,it can be seen in this function and as having indepen-dent features, as Middle English (238) and (239), even though, there areMiddle English texts that lack these constructions. Sentence (240) is from thefifteenth century and (241) from the end of the sixteenth. Verbal agreementis third singular and therefore with the argumentit, rather than with the post-verbal NP:

(238) CM, Cotton 7739“Ya, soth” said dauid “it es I.”(Kellner 1905: 178–9)

(239) Idem, 1311It is in erth na tung.(Visser 42)

(240) Gesta Romanorum 201It is not he that slewe the man,hit is I.(Kellner 1905: 178)

(241) Shakespeare, 2 Henry VI, IV, i, 117It is thee I feare.

This construction also seems rare. SearchingThe Merchant of Venice, 1 HenryVI, 1 Henry VI, 2 Henry IV, andKing Lear, I found one instance in the latter:

(242) King Lear, III, vii, 89It was hethat made …

There are in that text indications thatit is specified as singular, namely (243)and is perhaps restricted to third person as in (244). First persons seemperhaps to be emphasized as in (245):

(243) King Lear, II, ii, 31Is it two dayes since …

(244) King Lear, IV, i, 31Is it a Beggar-man …

(245) King Lear, IV, vii, 71And so I am: I am.

Searching for this construction in the entire First Folio, 12 instances of (242)can be found, 3 ofit is/was I, 3 of it is/was you, 4 variations onit is/was he,and 1it was she. The construction ‘it am I’ no longer occurs, indicating thatit is specified for third person.


The now currentit is meconstruction has been hindered in its develop-ment by prescriptive grammarians, but the change from theit is I one isexpected:it is now specified for Case (and Case is not attracted from apostverbal NP) as well as for third person singular. The first occurrences inVisser (1963) are from the end of the sixteenth century as in (246):

(246) Robert Greene III, iii, 276Let it be me.(from Visser, p. 240)

In this subsection, I present additional evidence that the person and numberfeatures of lexical elements differ. Because first person pronouns haveInterpretable features in Chaucer, they can be attracted for the checking oftheφ-features and hence the person split in presentatives occurs.

2.7 Conclusion

In this chapter, I continue the chronological discussion started in Chapter 1.Early Middle English is a time when many changes take place: inflectionweakens and so does Case. This has an impact on the pronouns in that theirfeatures change and some pronouns become referential. Using Reinhart &Reuland’s definition, most changes can be explained as a change frominherent to structural Case and from specified to less specifiedφ-features. Iffirst and second person pronouns (especially plural ones) have ‘weaker’person features, they can continue to function reflexively longer. That thirdperson pronouns are ‘stronger’ and more deictic is also the reason that theymove to D and that ‘self’ becomes an N sooner, as in (174). Hence, ‘him-self’ becomes frequent before ‘my/thyself’ does.

The reason ‘self’ reflexives are introduced in oblique positions is, Iargue, that they are not properly Case marked. The reason simple pronounsremain used as direct objects is that (as in Dutch) this is the only placewhere a ‘weak’ pronoun can be licensed by Middle English.

In order to explain the change to the Modern English situation wherefirst and second person pronouns cease to be used reflexively, it is importantto refine Reinhart & Reuland slightly and to introduce Interpretability. Theweakly specified features start to be checked in FCs throughout MiddleEnglish (not consistently though) and this makes them structurally specified


and hence, unable to function reflexively. This means that there is a differ-ence between specifiedφ-features (relevant for Binding) and Uninterpretablefeatures (relevant for checking). Even though both render an item referential,they are not identical.

In the next chapter, I show how the occurrence and non-occurrence ofpro-drop provides evidence for the un(der)specified nature of first and secondperson pronouns.

C 3

Pro-drop and feature strength

Pronominal argument languages are languages where NP arguments areoptional and the agreement on the verb suffices (see e.g. Jelinek & Willie1996). Other languages allow empty referential subjects (i.e. pro-drop) undercertain circumstances. Historically, some of these come about because thesubject pronoun ‘becomes’ verbal agreement. For instance, Börjars &Chapman (1998) argue that in certain dialects of Modern English whenpronouns are adjacent to the verb the verb appears without inflection. Hence,the pronoun has become the inflection. Safir (1985: 185) and Philippaki-Warburton (1987: 311) argue respectively that the Italian and Modern Greekempty subject pronouns are part of the ending of the verb. As the agreementdisappears, subjects again become necessary.

In Old English, I argue, pro-drop is quite common and this is an indica-tion of the strength of the verbal person features (see also e.g. Jelinek1983: 78 who argues that person licenses pro-drop in Egyptian Arabic).There is a person (and number) split which can be related to the splitdescribed in Chapters 1 and 2. If third person features in Old English aremore specified, they would license pro-drop,1 and that would also disallowthird person pronouns to function reflexively (once inherent Case is lost). So,I make a connection between features of (pro)nouns and features of verbs. Ifthe strength of certain features determines that pronouns can be dropped, onewould also expect object pro-drop and this is indeed the case in Old English(cf. also Rizzi 1986), unlike in Modern English. I devote one section toobject pro-drop.

In 3.1, I provide some theoretical background on the different kinds of

1. Borer (1989) shows that first and second person pro is possible in Hebrew. This is true inother languages as well, e.g. Finnish. This might indicate that they have specified features.


empty subjects, pro included. In 3.2, I discuss the Old English texts ad-dressed in Chapter 1, as well as the person split; in 3.3, the same is done forEarly Middle English and some later texts discussed in Chapter 2. In 3.4, Iconsider empty objects and 3.5 is the conclusion.

3.1 Background on pro-drop

In this section, I provide some theoretical background on empty subjects andpoint out that in Modern English, two kinds (PRO and topic-pro) occur andtwo kinds (referential and expletivepro) do not.

Within the generative framework, there are different kinds of emptycategories. If an element moves, it leaves a trace that must be licensed insome way (according to the Empty Category Principle). There are also emptycategories that do not come about through movement but that are basegenerated empty. Thus, if a transitive verb has no subject or object, thesearguments are nevertheless assumed to be present and are usually referred toas PRO (‘big PRO’), as in (1), orpro (‘little pro’), as in (2), the Spanishtranslation of (1). Modern English has PRO but notpro, since a tensedclause cannot have a null subject, as (3) shows:

(1) I want PRO to go.

(2) pro quiero PRO venir.

(3) *pro am talking to myself.

Chomsky (1982: 78ff.) distinguishes PRO frompro through the specificationfor [anaphor]: PRO is [+anaphor, +pronominal], whereaspro is [−anaphor,+pronominal]. Jaeggli & Safir (1989) provide some further criteria fordistinguishing between PRO andpro; for instance, PRO is obligatorilyempty, whilepro is optionally so; PRO is arbitrary in interpretation, whereaspro is more specific; and PRO is universally available, butpro exists only incertain languages.

The problems with ‘big PRO’ are that it is both a pronominal and ananaphor, has no governing category and, even though it is an argument, itdoes not have Case (to resolve this, Chomsky 1986a: 104; 209, n.45 argues

PRO-DROP AND FEATURE STRENGTH 123

that PRO has inherent Case).2 PRO is not relevant in this discussion and,hence, I will not go into it deeper. Regarding ‘little pro’, linguists fromTaraldsen (1978) and Chomsky (1981: 240ff.) on (e.g. Safir 1985; Huang1984) have argued that rich or strong agreement, as in (2), is responsible forlicensing it. This is reformulated in Platzack (1995a: 186) in a Minimalistframework. Others (Rizzi 1986: 519) have argued that certain heads (e.g. Vor I) licensepro under government. Ura (1994) argues thatpro is licensed byCase orφ-features.3 My data indicate that when theφ-features are unspeci-fied, an overt pronoun must appear. Hence, I basically adopt a Taraldsen/Platzack/Ura approach.

Apart from referentialpro and PRO, there is a third kind, namelyexpletivepro as in (4) from Spanish, and pseudo-referentialpro, as in (5)also from Spanish. The subjects left out do not refer to an argument:

2. Iatridou & Embick (1997) argue that PRO is specified forφ-features and cannot refer toelements unspecified for these, e.g. CPs.

3. There is evidence that in certain languages, structural Case licensespro. This is not aproblem for what is argued about inherent Case in this book, since I only claim objects haveinherent Case. Ifpro is licenced by structural Case,pro patterns with ‘real’ pronouns, i.e.specified forφ-features and for structural Case. It is the opposite of an anaphor. In Russian, asreported by Avrutin (1997), only a nominative subject can be dropped; when a dative markedpronoun is dropped, the construction becomes impersonal. For instance, in (i), there is a realpro in subject position, but in (ii), the empty subject is an expletive:

(i) Ivan govorit cto on/pro ucilsja v universiteteIvan says that he/pro studied at university

(ii) Ivan govorit cto emu/t bylo xolodnoIvan says that he/it was cold

Avrutin suggests that pro cannot have an inherent Case in Russian. However, this cannot be thecomplete story because (Avrutin, p.c) pro cannot occur in ECM structures or as regular objects,as in (iii) and (iv):

(iii)* Ivan schitaet pro umnymIvan considerspro smart‘Ivan considers someone smart’.

(iv)*Masha skazala cˇto Petja udaril proMasha said that Peter kickedpro‘Masha said that Peter kicked someone’. (Avrutin, p.c)


(4) Es muy interesante is very interesting‘ It is very interesting.’

(5) llueve rains, i.e. ‘it rains.’

This kind ofpro is not available in Modern English as the ungrammaticalityof (6) and (7) show (cf. Chapter 6 for the occurrence of (6) in Old andMiddle English):

(6) *Seems he will leave.

(7) *Will snow.

In Chomsky (1995), these are accounted for as having strong D-features inI that need to be checked overtly.

A fourth kind of empty subject is topic-drop which leaves out subject orobject topics, as in (8) and (9). Huang (1984) calls this ‘pronoun-zap’. AsSigurðsson (1993: 247) puts it, with topic-drop, the left out argument behaves“like a variable bound by a null-operator”. The empty operator occupies theSpecCP (of the root clause) since no other element can occupy it and itcauses V-to-C movement. Thus, if an empty subject occurs after a sentence-initial adverb or after a complementizer, as in (10) and (11), it cannot betopic-drop, but must be pro-drop. Modern English is therefore a languagewith topic-drop but no pro-drop:

(8) Hope to talk to you soon.

(9) Shouldn’t have done it.

(10) *I knew that shouldn’t have done it.

(11) *Later hope to talk to you.

A number of linguists have a broader definition of null subject. For instance,Visser (1963), Mustanoja (1960), and Pogatscher (1901) list examples suchas (12), a case of coordinate reduction that occurs in all stages of English. Ido not consider (12) a case of pro-drop:

(12) The king went to Normandy and met the bishop.

In short, Modern English has empty subjects with infinitives, as in (1), andwhen the subject is a topic, as in (8) and (9). It does not have empty


expletive subjects, as (6) and (7) show, or empty referential subjects, as in(3). Old English has all of these, as will be shown in the next section. Theaccount I adopt to explain these differences is a Taraldsen/Platzack one, i.e.I argue thatpro is licensed through certain (specified) features.

3.2 Old English

‘Older’ languages often license pro-drop (cf. Adams 1987; Abraham 1993;Sigurðsson 1993), possibly because the verbal inflection is unambiguous,which weakens the need for overt elements. In this section, I argue that OldEnglish is no exception and that Old English has referential pro-drop (contraHulk & van Kemenade 1995). I first describe the general situation withrespect to pro-drop and then show that there is a person split.

3.2.1 Pro-drop

As mentioned above, there are at least 4 kinds of empty subjects: withinfinitives, as expletives, as topics, and as fully referential elements. Emptysubjects occur freely with infinitives in many languages, Old Englishincluded, and will not be discussed here. If a language has ‘real’ pro-drop,it will also have topic-drop and Old English has both. The other two kinds,I argue in this section, are present in Old English but not in Modern English.I start with empty expletive, i.e. non-referential, subjects which are uncontro-versially argued to occur in Old English (e.g. Butler 1980). Most of thesection is therefore devoted to a careful examination of referential pro-dropin the texts discussed in previous chapters.

In Old English, there is an empty expletivepro, as in (13). Visser(1963: 4ff, 19ff; 2108ff.) gives instances with both an overt and an emptyexpletive, as well as with empty quasi-expletives, as in (14). He mentionsthat the latter is “extremely rare” (1963: 4), but survives into Middle English,as (15), from around 1400, shows. (For the remainder of this chapter, I putthe gloss of the null subject in italics):

(13) Exeter, Christ 1015Forþon nis ænig wundor hu him …therefore not-is any miracle how him ‘Thereforeit is not a miracle how he …’


(14) Exeter, Seafarer 31Nap nihtscua, norþan sniwdedarkened night-shadow, north-from snowed‘The shadow of the night darkened,snowcame from the north.’

(15) Pricke of Conscience, 1433Now es arly, now es late, Now es day, now es nyght‘Now it is early, nowit is late, now isit day, now isit night.’

This means either that the subject has person and number features (Rizzi1986) or that the features are strong (Platzack 1995a). An alternativepossibility is that SpecIP is optional and that D-features are not present(Haider 1990 and van Gelderen 1997). I will not argue for a particularanalysis for empty expletives here.

As to referential pro-drop, Hulk & van Kemenade (1995) argue that OldEnglish does not have it. However, (16) is one of the better known instances,found in one version ofCaedmon’s Hymn:

(16) Nu scylun hergan hefaenricaes uardnow must praise heavenly-kingdom guard‘Now wemust praise the lord of the heavenly kingdom.’

This lack of an overt pronoun cannot be topic-drop sincenu ‘now’ is presentin (16). Caedmon’s Hymnexists in many versions and in some, as in (17),weappears:

(17) Nuwe sculan herian heofonrices Weard.(Sweet 1885: 47)

Sentence (16) is from the Northumbrian version, probably from the 8thcentury and (17) is from a West-Saxon one, namely Alfred’s translation ofBede’s Ecclesiastical History from the 10th century.

Visser (1963: 4ff.) lists instances of referential pro-drop inBeowulf, asin (18), other instances are added ((19) through (27)). In Chapter 1, I list afew relevant to ‘self’, repeated here as (28) to (30). Most of these occur inembedded finite clauses, as in (19) to (22), and can therefore be neither PROnor topic-drop:

(18) Beo 1251Sigon þa to slæpesank then to sleep‘Theywent to sleep.’


(19) Beo 67þæt healreced hatan wolde / medoærn micel men gewyrceanthat palace command would meadhall large men to-build‘that hewould order his men to build a big hall, a big meadhall.’

(20) Beo 300þæt þone hilderæs hal gedigeðthat the battle-storm unhurt endure‘that theywill withstand unhurt the heat of the battle.’

(21) Beo 567–9þæt syðþan na / ymb brotne ford brimliðende /that since-then never on broad water-way seafarers lade ne lettonpassage not let‘that theyafter that never kept people from passing that water.’

(22) Beo 1486–7þæt ic gumcystum godne funde / beaga bryttan breacthat I manly-virtue good found ring dispenser enjoyedþonne mosteas-long could‘that I found a noble bestower of rings and enjoyed it as long asI could.’

(23) Beo 1591Sona þæt gesawonsoon that saw‘Soon theysaw that.’

(24) Beo 2344þeah ðe hord-welan heolde langethough the treasure held long‘thoughhe held the treasure long.’

(25) Beo 2518–20Nolde ic sweord beran / wæpen to wyrme gif ic wiste hu /not-wanted I sword bear weapon to dragon if I knew how wið ðam aglæcean elles meahteagainst that monster otherwise might‘I would bear no sword, weapon against the dragon, ifI knew whatelse I could do against the monster’.


(26) Beo 2353ond æt guðe forgrap Grendeles mægumand at battle seized Grendel kinsmen‘and he crushed Grendel’s kinsmen to death in battle.’

(27) Beo 3018–9ac sceal geomormod golde bereafod / … elland tredanbut shall sadly gold bereaved foreign-land tread‘Rather,sheshall sadly tread a foreign land, bereft of gold.’

(28) Beo 3067Seolfa ne cuðeself not knew‘He did not know himself (yet).’

(29) Beo 1468Selfa ne dorsteself not dared‘He did not dare himself.’

(30) Beo 1923–4þær æt ham wunað selfa mid gesiðumthere at home lives self with followers‘who himself lives there at home with his followers.’

Thus, Beowulf displays referential pro-drop. Pogatscher (1901: 262–275)provides many additional Old English examples. Most of his empty subjectsappear after finite complementizers or adverbs, as in (16) above, and hencecannot be topic-drop.

Visser also lists instances fromThe Exeter Book(Juliana), as in (31),Junius(Exodus, Daniel), as in (32) to (37), andJudith. Cases such as (34)are very clearly pro-drop, but some, (36) and (37), for instance, could betopic-drop:

(31) Juliana 142Het hi þa swinganordered her then beat‘He ordered her then to be beaten.’

(32) Exodus 21ofercom mid þy campe cneomaga felaovercame with it in-fight warriors many‘He overcame many warriors with it in battle.’


(33) Exodus 37–8Hæfde mansceaðan æt midre niht / frecne gefylledhad men at mid night fiercely smitten‘Fiercely at midnighthe hit …’

(34) Exodus 68Nearwe genyddon on norðwegasanxiously hastened on north-way‘Anxiously, theyhastened north.’

(35) Exodus 1404

Wære ne gymdoncovenant not heeded‘Theydid not heed the covenant.’

(36) Daniel 75Onsende þa sinra þegnasent then his thanes‘He sent then his thanes.’

(37) Idem 79Het þa secan sine gerefanordered then seek his reeves‘He ordered then to seek his reeves.’

(38) Judith 64 (Griffith 1997 edition)hæfde ða his ende gebidenehad then his end awaited‘He had reached his end.’

(39) Judith 80ongan ða swegles weard be naman nemnanbegan the bright guards by name name‘He began to name the bright guard by name.’

In the 9th century Mercian glosses, pro-drop, as in (40), is frequent, perhapsbecause the text is an interlinear translation of a Latin text with frequentpro-drop:

4. Visser lists 9 more before using ‘etc’.


(40) VP, 2.5ðonne spriceð to him in eorre histhen speaks to him in anger his‘Then he speaks to him in his anger.’

The same is apparent in the Lindisfarne (Northumbrian, i.e. northern)interlinear translation ofMatthew(Skeat 1887). This may again be due to theattempt to translate the Latin text word by word. As I show in the nextsection, however, there is a systematicity to pro-drop which can only beexplained if pro-drop is part of the syntax. Instances of pro-drop in both theLatin and Old English are given in (41) to (44). The West Saxon versions ofthe New Testament have less pro-drop, i.e. none in these examples:

(41) Matthew 8.26et dicit eis quid timidi estis modicæ fidei cueð to him huæt frohtende aron gie lytlo geleafaand says to them what fearing are you little faith‘and he says to them why do you fear, you of little faith.’

(42) Matthew 9.37Tunc dicit discipulis suis messis quidem …ða cueð ðegnum his hripes soðlice …then says disciples his harvest truely‘Then he says to his disciples the harvest truely …’

(43) Matthew 12.44tunc dicit …ða cueoeð …then says‘Then he says …’

(44) Matthew 17.20dicit illis propter incredulitatem uestramcueð him fore ungeleafulnise iurresays them for unbelief yours‘he says to them because of your unbelief …’


As to pro-drop in Alfred and Ælfric, Visser lists (45) to (47) from Alfred5

and (48) from Ælfric. Even ifþa in (45) were taken as a subject and not anadverbial, there would still be an instance of pro-drop afterþonne:

(45) Alfred, Orosius, 86.7 (Visser’s reference; not Bately’s)sume men secgað þæt þa beteran wæren þonne nu siensome men say that then better were than now are‘Some men say that the tides were better then thantheyare now.’

(46) Idem, 27.14 (Bately’s reference; Visser’s is 40.26)swylc her ær beforan sædewhich in this place previously said‘which he had said here before.’

(47) Alfred, Boethius, 9.28–9Forþa ic nu wille geornlice to Gode cleopian. Ongan þa giddientherefore I now want earnestly to God speak began then sing‘Therefore, I now want to speak to God earnestly. Thenhebegan to sing.’

(48) Hom I, 316.23namon þa to rede, …took then to council‘Theytook then to council …’

Discussing the use of subjects in Ælfric, Ropers (1918: 1) argues that thesubject pronoun is not always expressed but is mostly added to the Latinwhere the subject need not be expressed. He does not mention a person split.Schrader (1887: 43) says concerning Ælfric “die verwendung des pronomens[ist] häufig, doch reicht … das verb auch allein noch aus”. He also providesexamples. I am assuming that pro-drop occurs in Alfred and Ælfric. It is,however, much less than in Early OE.

In summary, pro-drop is common in Old English, but not with allsubjects to the same extent. I now turn to that.

5. It is strange that Bacquet (1962) in his monumental work on the VP in Alfred nevermentions pro-drop. There is only a chapter on coordinated constructions without a subject asin (12) above.


3.2.2 Person split

As I show here, pro-drop is more frequent with third person, which is notunexpected if third person is in fact more specified, as I argue in Chapters 1and 2. I first discuss Berndt’s (1956) data and then go into the other textsdiscussed before.

Berndt (1956) argues that pro-drop in the three Old English texts heexamines occurs more with third person than with first and second persons(unlike in Modern English). In his examination of verbal inflection, Berndt(p. 65ff.) also tabulates the increased use of personal pronouns. This issummarized in Table 3.1 below for 2 texts. His data indicate a clear first/second versus third person split. For instance, in the early 10th centuryDurham Ritual, which shows fewer pronouns than the other texts examined,87% of the first person singular pronouns appear, 78% second personsingular, 7% of the third singular, 98% of first person plural, 93% of secondperson plural, and 17% of third person plural. Berndt dividesThe LindisfarneGospelsandThe Rushworth Glossesin two parts each because one part ofthe latter is from a different dialect area (see also the comments in Chap-ter 1). The figures for indicative constructions for the presence of first personsingular are 96%, 99%, 97% and 96%; for second person singular 87%,93%, 88%, and 91%; for third singular 21%, 15%, 54%, and 16%; for firstplural 100%, 99%, 98%, and 98%; for second plural 95%, 95%, 89%, and83%; and for third plural 29%, 20%, 52%, and 19%. The difference betweenfirst and third person is highly significant.6 In the first part ofRushworth,the number for third person pro-drop is much lower (54% and 52%, but thedifference between first and third is still statistically significant,p< .001, inthis text). The first part ofRushworthis Mercian, i.e. more southern, thanLindisfarneor the second part ofRushworth. In Berndt’s figures, notice adifference between singular and plural as well: there is generally less pro-drop for plurals (but this is significant only with third person):7

6. For instance, in Lin 1, the probabilities are as follows, usingχ2: 1 vs 3: p<.001; 1+2vs 3: p< .001; 2 vs 3: p< .001; 1 vs 3:p< .001; 1+2 vs 3:p< .001.

7. For Lin 1,p< .001; for Lin 2,p< .01; for Rush 1, n.s.; for Rush 2,p< .001.


Table 3.1.Numbers of null versus overt subject in Lindisfarne and Rushworth

Lin 1 Lin 2 Rush 1 Rush 2

112233

009/212 (=96%)000/53 (=100%)016/103 (=87%)010/206 (=95%)445/116 (=21%)263/108 (=29%)

0009/656 (=99%)0001/120 (=99%)0022/308 (=93%)0021/428 (=95%)1292/225 (=15%)0618/154 (=20%)

006/191 (=97%)001/44 (=98%)012/90 (=88%)020/168 (=89%)223/246 (=54%)130/141 (=52%)

021/528 (=96%)002/100 (=98%)022/226 (=91%)062/302 (=83%)995/186 (=16%)528/124 (=19%)

Berndt does not discuss the different kinds of pro-drop but examining someverb forms, the split becomes obvious. In the first 30 occurrences of Latindico ‘I say’, 7 are preceded byego ‘I’, whereas in the NorthumbrianLindisfarne29 ics are present, i.e. 22 have been added. Of the 6 occurrencesof faciam ‘I make’, none have a subject pronoun in Latin but all haveicadded in the Northumbrian version. So pro-drop with first person is notfrequent. Pro-drop with third person is much more frequent. Of the 27occurrences ofdicit ‘he says’, some listed above as (41) to (44), the North-umbrian version never addshe. Of the 27, 6 are pro-drop, as in (41) to (44),16 have a full NP subject, and 5 lack a subject but can be seen as topic-dropin a coordinated environment. As mentioned, Skeat’s edition includes aMercian and two West Saxon texts and the latter generally have less pro-drop. This person split shows that the glosses are not direct translations ofthe Latin original but reflect a consistent grammatical system.

I now examine the other texts discussed in Chapter 1. InBeowulf, thirdperson pro-drop predominates, even though there are 2 instances, (22) and(25) above, that have a first person singular pro-drop. For instance, in thefirst 20 lines, there are 5 third person cases of pro-drop (possibly topic-drop)but none with first person. Representative instances of both are (49) and(50)/(51) respectively. Thus, it appears that plural pro-drop is slightly lessfrequent than singular (cf. Berndt’s figures above):


(49) Beo 7–11He þæs frofre gebad / weox under wolcnumHe that- consolation- waited grew under clouds-

weorðmyndum þah / oð þæt him æghwylc þarahonor- accepted/grew until him every of theymbsittendra / ofer hronrade hyran scolde /ones-sitting-around- across the sea obey should gomban gyldan.tribute pay‘He was consoled for that.He grew up. His honor grew until everyoneof the neighboring people on the other side of the sea had to obeyhim; theyhad to pay tribute.’

(50) Beo 290–3Ic þæt gehyre þæt þis is hold weorod / frean Scyldinga. GewitaþI that hear that this is friendly army goforð beran / wæpen ond gewædu. Ic eow wisige / swylce icon carrying your arms and armor I you will lead just as Imaguþegnas mine hate …men my will command (to …)

(51) Beo 335–8Ic eom Hroðgares / ar one ombiht. Ne seah icI am H’s messenger and officer never saw Ielþeodige / þus manige men midiglicran / Wen ic þætforeign-warriors so many men more courageous hope I thatge …you …

In ExeterandJunius, as in (31) to (37) above, the instances listed in Visserare third person. In the (Mercian)Vespasian Psalter, the Latin text has aninterlinear Old English gloss. Many instances ofic andðu are added but notof third person pronouns. For instance,dabo is translated asic sellu ‘I give’,as in (52) and (53),clamaui as ic cleopede‘I called’, as in (54) and (55),timeboas ic ondredu‘I feared’, as in (56) and (57):

(52) VP 2.8et dabo tibi ic sellu ðe‘and I give you …’


(53) VP 31.9intellectum dabo tibiondgetic sellu ðe‘Intelligence I give you.’

(54) VP 3.3ad dnm clamauito dryht ic cleopede‘To God I cried out.’

(55) VP 17.5et ad dm meum clamaui to gode minumic cleopede‘and to my God I called out.’

(56) VP 3.5non timebo milia populi circumdantis mene ondreduic ðusend folces ymsellendes me‘I do not dread thousand people surrounding me.’

(57) VP 22.4non timebo malane ondreduic yfel‘Not dreaded I evil.’

In this text, there are 785 instances ofic but only 75 ofego. Thus, the writeradding the glosses added first person quite freely. In fact, a list of verbsending in -u, i.e. first person, reveals that they are all accompanied byic. InLatin, the third person pronoun is mostly omitted and the form is variable,but there are 945 verbs in the Latin version that end in -it, i.e. third personpresent (but there are many more third person verbs), and only 95 instancesof he in the English text (very few variants). Accordingly, even though thereis a minimum of 1000 third person verbs in the Latin (but probably manymore), there are fewer than 100 instances of a third person pronoun in theEnglish gloss.

In Old English, the occurrence of pro-drop with third person subjectsprovides evidence that third person features are more specified and that thepronoun can therefore appear as pro. This correlates with what I argue inChapters 1 and 2. It also appears that singular is perhaps a little morespecified than plural since more pro-drop appears (and more reflexives with‘self’). If φ-features of first and second person pronouns are less specified


than those of third person ones, one expects a difference in verbal agreementtoo. In the next chapter, I will argue that this is indeed the case. Agreementreduction occurs with first and second but not with third person. Pluralinflection is lost before singular. For now, some examples suffice:

(58) Ælfric,Hom I, 88.32Nelle we ðæs race na leng teonnot-want we that argument no longer extend‘We don’t want to extend that argument any more.’

(59) Idem, 280.4Nu hæbbe ge gehyred …now have you heard

(60) Idem, 286.15Ac wite ge ðæt nan man ne mæg fullice ymbe god sprecanbut know you that no man not may fully/foully around god speak

(62) Caligula 537Nulle we noht þis on-fon. ah we farenwlle[ð].not-want we not this accept but we go want‘We don’t want to accept this, but we want to go.’

Not surprisingly, in other Old Germanic languages, a split also occurs (aswell as in older Indo-European, e.g. see Gonda 1975). For instance, pro-dropin the Old DutchWachtendonckse Psalmenfollows the Old English pattern.Van der Wal (1992 [1994]: 98) quotes de Smet (1970) who shows that firstand second person pronouns are present in the majority of cases. In OldHigh German, in texts with frequent pro-drop such asOtfrid, Isidor andTatian, the person split is very noticeable. Eggenberger (1961) gives numbersof pro-drop in the main clause (as well as the subordinate clause but I haveomitted these). InOtfrid, first person (and second patterns with first) is leftout in 28 instances and third person in 174 instance. The number of firstperson pronouns is 426 and of third 1194, which means that first person isdropped in 6.6% and third person in 14.6% of the cases. InIsidor, 2 firstperson pronouns are dropped and 36 specified; 15 third person ones appearwhereas 29 are dropped. InTatian, 415 first person pronouns appear whereas103 (24.8%) are dropped; 394 third person pronouns appear whereas 460 aredropped. InNotker, very few pronouns are dropped and there is no longer apronoun split.


In summary, Old English has pro-drop, especially with third person andslightly more with singular than with plural, which is not unexpected if thethird person features are specified. One of the problems is that the presenceor absence of features is never absolute: the strength of the features can vary.

3.3 Middle and Early Modern English

In Chapter 2, I show that simple pronouns continue to be used reflexively aslate as Middle English, especially first and second person ones. In thissection, I show that pro-drop continues to occur as well, especially with thirdperson pronouns. Visser (1963: 4ff.) lists instances from the thirteenth-centuryAncrene Riwle, the fourteenth-centuryCursor MundiandHavelok,and the fifteenth-centuryMandevilleandThe Stonor Papers. The Helsinki-Penn Corpus indicates pro-drop and I have used its instances below asappropriate. Visser provides examples as late as Shakespeare and Milton.This is not unexpected since pronouns continue to be used reflexively inShakespeare. As in other chapters and sections, I divide this section up intoEarly Middle English, and Middle and later English.

3.3.1 Early Middle English

The three texts I discuss areHistory of the Holy Rood Tree(HRT), from the12th century, Layamon’sBrut, and some texts from the ‘Katherine Group’,from the 13th century. In Layamon and HRT pro-drop is highly exceptional,but it is quite frequent in the ‘Katherine Group’ texts.

Sentence (63) is an instance of pro-drop from the HRT (Napier: 1894).Many instances are ambiguous, e.g. (64) and (65), as the subject might bedeleted because of coordination (the relevant subject is in italics in thegloss). In fact, Penn-Helsinki has annotated the coordinated subjects andfinds 215 of these but no pro-drop:


(63) HRT, 10.25–7Sonæ swa he heom on hond nimæn wolde þa wurdon heo feringæ allfurenne swa ðæt þam cnihte forburnon ba twa þa handæn all buton ðaearmæs‘As soon as he would take them in his hand, then they became sud-denly all fiery so thattheyburned for the knight both his two handsexcept his arms.’

(64) HRT, 14.13–5ða on þam niŠoðe dæŠe þa sende him roxilus his boden to of þare ceastreðe inemned is Iobel; & him cyðan het þt he swiðlice iuntrumod wære‘Then on the ninth day then sent Roxilus his messengers to him fromthe town that is called Iobel andhe commanded them to say to himthat he was very sick.’

(65) HRT, 14.16–8ða dyde dauid swa he hine biddan het & him rædlice to com. & hineneosian ongan‘Then did David as he (i.e. Roxilus) had asked them to ask him andhe quickly went to him and began to visit him.’

Pogatscher (1901: 271) gives some examples from this text but they arerelative clauses (26.11 and 34.12) and do not count as pro-drop.

Comparing Layamon toBeowulf, for example, it is obvious that subjectpronouns abound in the latter. A few instances can be found in the former,e.g. in (66), (67) and (68) where theich was later inserted into the manu-script, but considering that there are 16,000 double lines of text, pro-drop isvery much the exception:

(66) Caligula 2381–2whet him weore to donne. bi þon ilke monne / bi Godlac kinge. þe huold i bende‘what he should do with the man and the king, whomhe held in cap-tivity.’

(67) Caligula 1026hehte heo nemnen Kaerlud. æfter þone kinge‘he called it (the city) Kaerlud after the king (i.e. himself).’

(68) Caligula 1707þat ⟨ ich⟩ was a riche king‘that I was a rich king.’


The pattern in Layamon is as in HRT, i.e. coordinated subjects are frequentlydeleted, as in (69):

(69) Caligula 24LaŠamon leide þeos boc. þa leaf wendeLayamon laid-out these books andhe leaf turned

The Bodley manuscript of the ‘Katherine group’ includes the textsKaterine,Iuliene, Margarete, Hali Meidhad and Sawles Warde. The Penn-HelsinkiCorpus provides markings for pro-drop in these texts.8 Katherineis a text ofabout 1200 double lines (21 two-sided manuscript pages). The page numbersused here refer to the pages in d’Ardenne’s edition of the Bodley manuscript.However, all instances of pro-drop appear in the Royal version as well.9 In(70), a second person subject is left out and in (71) a first person:

(70) þeos meiden lette lutel of þ he seide. ant smirkinde smeðelicheŠef himþullich onswere. al ich iseo þine sahen sottliche isette.cleopest þeo þinggodes þe nowðer sturien ne mahen.(p. 24)‘This maiden thought little of what he said. and smilingly gave him asmooth answer. I see all your savings are foolishly put out. Callyouthose things good that neither stir nor have power.’

(71) ich am katerine icleopetŠef þu wult cnawe mi cun; ich am kinges dohter.cost hehte mi feader anthabbe ihauet hiderto swiðe hehe meistres.(p. 26)‘I am called Katherine if you want to know my kin. I am (a) king’sdaughter. My father was called Cost andI have up to now had highteachers.’

All the others are third person, even though (72) is probably topic-drop. In(77), both subject and verb are left out and, in (80), the Penn Corpusmarkers mark the first pro-drop afteriseh, which is only one possibleinterpretation (the relevant pronoun is indicated in bold in the glosses andthe verbs with the dropped pronoun are in italics in the text):

8. Johanna Wood compiled this list.

9. The lines are ll. 27, 31, 360, 405, 466, 1598, 1696, 1847, 2116, 2207, and 2363.


(72) Costentin walde efter ant warpen him þe onne. ah se wide him weoxweorre on euche halue ant nomeliche in a lont ylirie hatte þ [tear] heetstutte þa maxence iherde þis þ he wes of him siker ant of his cunnecarles.war king of þ lont þe lei into rome as duden meast alle þe oðreof þe weorlde.Bigon anan ase wed wulf to weorrin hali chirche antdreaien cristenemen þe lut þt ter weren alle to heaðendom heaðene ashe wes summe þurh mucheleŠeouen ant misliche meden summe þurhfearlac. (pp. 17–18)‘Constantin wanted to follow and drive him out. But so wide (spread)became the war on every side and especially in a country called Illyriathat he stopped there. Then Maxence heard this that he was secure andin his manner careless.He became king of the land which was subjectto Rome as did most all other of the world.He began anon as a madwolf to persecute the holy church and to draw Christians the few thatthere were all to heathenism, heathen as he was, some by large giftsand diverse rewards some through fear.’

(73) for Šef hit went aŠein us. ne schal þe na teone ne tintreohe trukien. þa hehefde þus iseid.cleopede an of his men dearliche to him.(p. 24)‘for if it went against us, it shall cause thee no trouble nor torment.Then he had thus said.He called one of his men dear to him.’

(74) Ich hit am michael heh-en gel … & mid tet ilkestep up. (p. 30)‘It is me Michael the archangel … and with thathemounted up.’

(75) heo biheolden hire hokerliche alle. ant stot hercnede ant …(p. 30)‘They all beheld her mockingly andshestood listening.’

(76) Ariseð qð katerine ne dredeŠe nawiht for þe deore drihtin haueð idihtow ba þe blisfule crune of his icorene. þa ha weren iseten up.sehen asþe engles wið smirles of aromaz smireden hire wunden ant bi-eoden swaþe bruchen of hire bodi al to-broken of þe beattunge.(p. 38)‘Arise said Katherine and do not dread anything for the dear lord hasappointed for you both the blissful crown of his chosen ones. Thenthey were raised up.Theysaw as the angles with oil of aromasmeared her wounds and treated (in) such (way) the hurts of her bodyall broken through the beating.’


(77) I þ heouenliche lond iþ endelese lif iþe wunnen & te weolen þurh-wuniende &monie ma murhðen þen alle men mahten wið hare muðmunien & tellen wið tunge.(p. 40)‘In the heavenly land, in that endless life, in the joy and the blisseverlasting andthey havemany more joys than all men may with theirmouths tell and tell with tongue.’

(78) Na þing ne dret tu. for ich am eauer wið þe.do þt me do þe. & monieschulen þurh þe.Šet turne to me.(p. 42)‘Do not dread a thing because I am always with thee.Whatever theydo that men do to thee. And many shall through thee yet turn to me.’

(79) [S]one se he understot wel þ he ne sturede hire nawt.het on hat-heorteunhendeliche neomen hire & bute dom…(p. 47)‘Soon he understood well that he moved her not.He ordered hot-heatedly rudely to take her and without judgement …’

(80) þa porphireiseh feole þe me seide hit up-on gultelese leaden ant dreaiento deaðe.leop forð wið-ute fearlac & com biuoren þe keiser …(p. 48)‘Then Porhire sawthemguiltlessly carry and drag to death many whomen accused of it.He leapt forth without fear and came before theemperor …’

(81) As ha hefde iseid tus.Bisohte þe wið þe bront as hit blikede buuen hire.(p. 51)‘As she had spoken thus.Shebegged the one with the brand as itflashed above her.’

So, in Katerine, 12 third person pronouns are dropped and 1 first and 1second person. Only 3 third person ones are plural. The difference cannot becaused by the lack of first and second person pronouns since overt first,second, and third person pronouns occur almost as frequently: there are 74instances ofich ‘I’, 27 of we, 51 of the second person singular pronoun, 19of Še ‘you-’, 89 of he, 59 of ha ‘she, they’ and 20 ofheo ‘she, they.’

The instances of missing subject pronouns inMargareteare (82) to (93).Eight are third person pro-drop as in (82), (84) to (87), (89), (90), and (93);(83) and (88) are first person pro-drop; and 3 are expletive (third person)subjects, as in (89), (91), and (92). Only (93) is plural:

(82) ouercom & acaste ham.(p. 55)‘Sheovercame and overthrew them.’


(83) bi-ŠŠet hit iwriten of þe writers þa; al hire passiun & hire pinfule deð þtha dreh for drihtin.(p. 55)‘and I obtain it written by the writers then; all her passion and herpainful death that she suffered for the lord.’

(84) ŠŠef hire þe grace of þe hali gast. swa þ ha ches him to luue & tolefmon.(p. 55)‘and he gave to her the grace of the holy ghost so that she chose himas beloved and lover.’

(85) Olibrius hehte schireue of þe lond þt alle þe lefden o þe liuiende goddfordude & for-demde.(p. 56)‘He was called Olibrius, sheriff of the land, that condemned andkilled all that believed in the living God.’

(86) weorreð warpeð euer þer-toward. wið willes. wið werkes. wið allescunnes wrenches.(p. 57)‘and hewages war and attacks ever theretoward, in intentions, indeeds, in all kinds of tricks.’

(87) Het hire iþe oðer dei bringen biuoren him. (p. 59)‘He commanded to bring her before him on the second day.’

(88) ich … habbe to bileue þe weld.(p. 60)‘I … and I have to believe he rules over thee.’

(89) bed biliues coste keasten hire i cwalm-hus. ant swa me dude sone. & wesas þah hit were. þe seoueðe time of þe dei. þet me droh hire þus in todorkest wan.(p. 66)‘He bade his beloved Nubians to throw her in the torture-house. Andso they did. Andit was as if it were the seventh hour of the day thatthey drew her thus into the darkest dwelling.’

(90) Ah o þin bliffule nome ich blesci me nuðe. &droh þa ende-long hire &þwertouer þrefter þe deorewurðe taken. of þe deore rode þt he on reste.(pp. 70–71)‘But in the blissful name, I bless me now. Andshedrew then alongherself and athwart over after that the dear-worthy token of the dearrood (cross) which he rested on.’

(91) Ah swa waxeð þt wa þurh þt ha hit þeauieð; þt hamþuncheð god þrof.(p. 77)‘But so grows that woe because they allow it, thatit seems good tothem thereof.’


(92) Ah sone se hit ischawet bið birewsinde i schrifte þennescheomeð meþer-wið. (p. 79)‘But as soon as it is shown repenting in shrift, thenit shamesmetherewith.’

(93) Ah beoð se cleane ouercumen.(p. 80)‘but theyare so completely overcome.’

Missing pronouns inIuliene are listed as (94) to (102). The Penn Corpuslists (95) and (99), but these may be impersonal subjects. In (100), thesubject ofsmatmay be dropped as well:

(94) þa he hefde þus idon.sende hire þus to seggen hire wil he hefde iwraht.(p. 97)‘When he had done thus,he sent to her to tell her what he had done.’

(95) [þ]a eleusius seh þ ha þus feng on to festnin hire seoluen isoðe bileaue;þohte he walde don hire anan ut of dahene. & bed biliue bringen forðbrune wallinde bres.(p. 105)‘Then Eleusius saw that she thus began to make herself firm in thetrue belief.He thought he wanted to get her at once out of days. andasked quickly to bring burning boiling brass.’

(96) wið þ he þis hefde iseid.bigon swa teŠuren þ monie weren awundret.hwet tetŠur were.(p. 115)‘…with that he had said this,he began so to cry out that many won-dered what the outcry was.’

(97) Ah we schulen iseo nu. for hit schal sone sutelin hu þi wichecreft schalwite þe. & werien.& lette o wodiwise a swiðe wunderlich hweol meten.& makien ant þurh-spitien hit al wið spaken & felien þicke & þreofaltwið irnene gadien.(p. 117)‘But we should see now. Because it shall soon be shown how yourwitchcraft shall protect you and protect. Andhe let madly the verymiraculous wheel design and make and fix it with spokes and thickfellies and threefold with iron goads.’

(98) do nu deadliche on us al þt tu do maht. make us reue anan-riht mislichepinen on-tentd fur & feche hweol. greiðe al þconst grimliche bi-þenchen.(p. 121)‘Do now deadly to us all that you can. Make us, reeve, straightawayunpleasant pain. Kindle the fire and fetch the wheel. Prepare all thatyou can cruelly think of.’


(99) se grundliche him gromede. & set te balefule beast; as eauer ei iburstbar. þt grunde his tuskes. & fen on to feamin. & gristbeatien grislicheup-o þis meoke meiden.& þohte wið hwuch mest wa. he mahte hireawealden.(p. 122)‘So deeply was he angered, and the baleful beast sat as ever any brislyboar that ground his tusks. And began to foam and grind his teethhorribly upon this meek maiden andhe thought with which greatestwoe he might master her.’

(100) ha cleopede to drihtin. & hit colede anan. & warð hire ase wunsum asþah hit were a wlech beað iwlaht for þen anes in for te beaðien.& smatup aŠein þeo þe iŠarket hit hefden.& forschaldede of ham as hit upscheat.(p. 123)‘She called to God and it cooled at once and became for her as pleas-ant as though it were a tepid bath made warm for this once to bathein. And it shot up against those that had prepared it andit scaldedthem as it shot up.’

(101) alle italde bitale. seoue siðe tene. & forðreŠet fiue. þa þe reue þis iseh;rende hise claðes & toc him-seolf bi þe top. & feng to fiten his feont. &lastin his lauerd.(p. 123)‘All told in number seven times ten. and further yet five. Then thereeve saw this.He tore his clothes and took himself by the hair andstarted to fight his enemy and revile his lord.’

(102) Swiðe ich biseche ow. þŠe bidden for me. breðren. & sustren.& custeham coss os pes alle as ha stoden. ant biheold up part. ant hehede hiresteuene.(p. 125)‘Quickly I ask you that you pray for me, brothers and sisters. Andshekissed them a kiss of peace as she stood and looked upwards andraised her voice.’

So there are 8 missing third person pronouns, as in (94) to (97) and (99) to(102), and 1 second person in (98). None are plural. The total number ofovert pronouns is not that different between the different persons. There are103 ichs, 22wes, 116 second person singular pronouns, 28Šes, 88hes, 74has ‘she, they’, and 15heos ‘she, they’.

In Hali Meidhad (HM), the Penn-Helsinki Corpus lists 4 missingpronouns in the Bodley version, 2 are third person and 2 are second person.Interestingly, the first 2 do not appear in the other version of HM thatappears in Titus (T 193; T 197):


(103) sið þe folhin hire troden Meiden gan as heo dude.(pp. 137–8)‘he (the devil) sees you follow her footsteps, maiden, go as she did.’

(104) alde feond, sið i þis mihte stonde se hehe ilich hire. hire sune. asengel in heouene. i meiðhades menske.(p. 138)‘… old fiend. Andhe sees in this virtuetheestand so high like herand her son as angels in heaven in the grace of maidenhood.’

(105) ŠŠeuest þin beare bodi to tukin swa to wundre.(p. 147)‘and you give your bare body to maltreat so scandalously.’

(106) & fuleð þi flesch ec. gulteð o twa half. wreaðest þen al-wealdent wið þtsuti sunne. & dest woh to þe-seolf.(p. 154)‘and also fouls your flesh; sins on both sides.you anger the almightywith that foul sin and harm yourself.’

In the last text of the Bodley manuscript,Sawles Warde, instances of pro-drop are (107) and (108), both third person:

(107) Strengðe stont nest hire þtŠef ei wule in; warschipes vnþonkes.warnistrengðe fore. þt is hire suster; & heo hit ut warpe.(p. 168)‘Strength stands next to-her so-that if any want in, against the will ofPrudence,shemight warn Strength, who is her sister, beforehand, andshe (strength) throws it/them out.’

(108) for lonc he is. & leane. & his leor deaðlich. & blac & elheowet. & euchher þuncheð þtstont in his heaued up.(p. 169)‘because he is tall and lean and his face is deathly and black and lividand each hair seems thatit stands up on his head.’

In summary, in Early Middle English, pro-drop occurs relatively freely in theKatherine Group. As will be shown in the next chapters (on agreement andCase), the texts from the Katherine Group are very much transitional. Verbalinflection is quite strong, and as a result, pro-drop is common as well. InherentCase is being lost, however, and a number of pronouns are followed by‘self’. The pro-drop situation in Layamon and HRT is different. There seemsto be little pro-drop, accounting for the fact that the features are unspecifiedor weak, and that simple pronouns can function reflexively. As I show inChapter 5, Layamon and HRT are also texts in which inherent Case issomewhat active for third person making pronouns even less referential.


3.3.2 Middle English and later

In the Middle English of the 14th century, pro-drop occurs infrequently.Mustanoja (1960: 121) says: “non-expression of the subject or object pro-noun, is common from OE down to late ME”, but, as mentioned, manyexamples mentioned there are instances of coordination reduction which donot count as pro-drop. Examples of pro-drop fromCursor Mundi(CM) are(109) (from Visser, p. 4) and (110), where Morris’ edition puts the subjectin square brackets, an indication that it is not present in the manuscript. Eventhough there are almost 30,000 lines, pro-drop is very rare:

(109) CM, Cotton, 1075And quen he had his broiþer slan /Bigan to hid his cors o-nan‘After he had slain his brother,he started to hide the body.’

(110) CM, Cotton, 1287Quen [he] þar-of son had a sight‘After he saw that …’

Mustanoja (p. 138–9) says that non-expressed subjects are relatively frequentin CM, Havelok, Piers Plowman, Chaucer’s poetry and Gower. He says it israre inOrmulumand Chaucer’s prose and comparatively rare inPearl, oneof the works of the ‘Gawain Poet’, andHandlyng Synne. However, most ofhis examples (pp. 140–144) are deleted coordinated subjects. Einenkel(1916: 130) also says that there are many instances where the subject can beleft out, but his examples too are not strictly pro-drop. He lists as a separatecategory instances such as (109) above, where the relative adverbial clause‘provides’ the missing subject. I will consider (109) and (111), listed byEinenkel, as instances of pro-drop since the SpecCP is filled by the adverbialclause and the missing subject could not be a topic:

(111) Chaucer, Troilus & Criseyde, Bk 1, 1009–11Whan Troilus hadde herd Pandare assented /To ben his help in lovyng of Cryseyde, /Weex of his wo … untormented‘When Troilus had heard Pandare assent to help him in pursuing thelove of Cressida,he became with respect to his woe untormented.’


However, Chaucer’s use is very limited as compared to Old English and theKatherine Group.

Referential pro-drop persists in this limited way into the 17th century (cf.Visser p. 5):

(112) Shakespeare, Hamlet, III, i, 8Nor do we find him forward to be sounded, But with a crafty madnesskeeps aloof.

(113) Milton, Paradise Regained I, 85This is my Son belov’d, in him am pleas’d.

Thus, pro-drop dies out in the 17th century, demonstrating that person andnumber features are unspecified by that time. In Chapter 2, I argue the 17thcentury is also the period when simple pronouns cease to function reflexive-ly. Thus, the complete demise of pro-drop and of the reflexive use ofpronouns are due to the same development.

3.4 Object pro-drop

If the more specified nature of certain person features accounts for emptysubjects, one would expect the same for empty objects since it is the featureson the pronoun that are specified. Object pro-drop does indeed occur. Visser(1963: 97–188) distinguishes different kinds of verbs that occur withoutcomplement, and accounts for this in terms of different degrees of transitiv-ization. One of his categories is ‘transitive verbs used absolutely’ and listsOld English examples of verbs that ‘normally’ occur with genitive, dative,and accusative objects, as in (114) to (118), where the object has beendeleted (indicated in italics in the gloss). Some of these, e.g. (117), would bea reflexive object that is deleted, however:

(114) Beo 47–9hie … leton holm beran / geafon on garsecgthey let sea bear gave on ocean‘They let him bear the sea, and gavehim the ocean.’

(115) Beo 573þonne his ellen deahthen his courage lasts‘when his courage lastshim.’


(116) Lindisfarne, Matthew 9.8Ondreardonfeared, i.e. ‘They fearedthem.’

(117) Alfred, PC (Hatton) 165.21ðæt he sona forðæm hreowsigethat he soon therefore repents

(118) Ælfric, Hom II, 158.13Begunnon hi to cidennebegan they to chide them

Ohlander (1949:109) lists other examples fromBeowulf, Elene, andAndreas.Visser also lists examples from Layamon,Cursor Mundi, Hali Meidhad,

and Chaucer (among others).10 In some of these, the verbs are so general,however, that in Modern English an object is superfluous as well:

(119) Caligula 14808and bi-gunnen þer to bulden. bi þan watere þa was hendeand began there to build it by the water that was good

(120) CM, Cotton, 13492‘We sal’, he said, ‘do nu ful wele’‘ “We shall”, he said, “doit now very well”.’

(121) HM (Titus), 41Ha beon eauer feard for to losen‘She was ever afraid to loseit.’

Ohlander (1943: 110) gives Middle English examples mainly from Chaucerand some Early Modern ones from Shakespeare.

The object control construction is relevant here too sincepro couldappear in constructions such as (114) above, (122) and (123), cf. Visser(1970: 1342ff.) and also Rizzi (1986: 153ff.). Old and Middle Englishexamples abound:

(122) Caligula 5161he lette makien ænne dic‘He madethemmake the dike.’

10. The Penn-Helsinki Corpus does not mark object pro.


(123) CM, Cotton, 5592þat badd þe childer for to drun‘that orderedthemto drown the children.’

All cases of object control are of third person, which is expected if these arethe most specified pronouns and can license empty arguments.

3.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, I illustrate that pro-drop occurs regularly in Old English andin the Early Middle English texts from the ‘Katherine Group’. This isexpected if person features are more specified in those stages. When pro-drop occurs, it is most frequent with third person pronouns, and possiblymore frequent with singular than plural. If third person features are morespecified (perhaps have more deictic relevance), as I argue in the previouschapters, these data are not unexpected. The Katherine Group has manyinstances of pro-drop and, as will be shown in the next chapter, full agree-ment. Thus, third person features are specified and hence few third personpronouns are used reflexively (cf. Chapter 2). This is not the case with firstand second and they remain used reflexively.

In other Middle English texts, pro-drop disappears and, as will be shownin the next chapter, this can usually be linked to loss in agreement. Forinstance, in Layamon’sBrut, there is no pro-drop but agreement is alsostarting to change. Third person simple pronouns continue to functionreflexively, however, because, unlike in the Katherine Group, Case is stillinherent. In other texts, inherent Case is lost and person features becomeweak. As a result, simple pronouns cease to function reflexively altogether.

C 4

The loss of verbal agreement and verb-movement

In the previous chapter, I have argued that person and number features onpronouns can differ in ‘strength’. If this is the case, one expects verbalagreement to show some sign of this (even though perhaps not alwaysdirectly). In this chapter, I show that first and second person agreement onthe verb is lost before third person and argue that this is indicative of thestrength of the different features. I claim that, as a separate development inkeeping with the change from a synthetic to an analytic language, verbsbecome checked in higher Functional Categories (FCs), a result of their lossof inflection. This second point is relevant to my account of the changes inEnglish in a Minimalist framework, namely the increase in UninterpretableFeatures. The two issues are connected, however, since the agreement is firstlost when the verb moves, i.e. in Verb–Subject (hence VS) constructions,which then leads to features becoming Uninterpretable.

Rich verbal inflection has been argued (a) to license pro-drop (e.g.Taraldsen 1978; Safir 1985: 220; and previous chapter); (b) to be connectedto overt verb-second (Platzack & Holmberg 1989: 72; van Gelderen1993: 75ff.; Roberts 1993: 246ff., 1996); and (c) to activate the Agr(eement)and T(ense) positions (Bobaljik & Jonas 1996). The claims in (b) and (c)follow if one assumes that the relationship between morphology and syntaxis a direct one: elements move because they need to ‘pick up’ inflection inhigher FCs (cf. Baker’s 1988 Mirror Principle). In this chapter, I show thatclaim (b) is incorrect (in accordance with Chomsky 1995 who does notconnect morphological strength with the feature strength that triggersmovement) and that there are cases where the reverse is true: when a verbmoves to a higher FC, there is less inflection. This connects the change froma synthetic to an analytic language to the introduction (or activation) of FCs.In a previous chapter, I argue that inherent Case is not visible before it


reaches LF. The same holds for inflection: since it is relevant to the Interpre-tation, it is only visible at LF. This means that the person and numberfeatures are Interpretable. With the loss of inflection, the features becomeUninterpretable and FCs are introduced.

In this chapter, I explore the relationship between inflection and move-ment. In Section 4.1, I provide some background on the impact of richinflection in some languages. I argue that rich inflection does not necessarilyresult in overt movement, but that ‘poor’ inflection does. Thus, features thattrigger movement (i.e. the Uninterpretable features of Chomsky 1995,1998a, b) are not (always) morphologically specified or strong. In 4.2, I showthat first and second person verbs in Old English lose agreement before thirdperson ones, evidence that they are less specified, as also argued in previouschapters. I also show that even though in many texts there is a relationshipbetween pro-drop and overt agreement, this is not absolute. In 4.3, I arguethat the person split disappears during the Middle English period as expectedconsidering the changes in Middle English reflexives. In 4.4, I show that inOld English there is no link between rich inflection on the onehand andmovement and the presence of FCs such as T and AgrS on the other. This is inkeeping with the conclusions reached in Section 4.1. In 4.5, I discuss the loss ofovert verb-movement. This section considers what the un(der)specified natureof features results in, namely Uninterpretable features.

A note on what is meant by reduced inflection is necessary. I assumereduced inflection to mean a lack of person or number marking, as in ModernEnglish I have [aj hæv]; the verb form with reduced inflection is oftenidentical to the non-finite form. For instance, in Middle English, the pluralverb shows reduced inflection for person since it is the same for all persons.

4.1 Rich inflection and movement

In languages such as German and Dutch, verb-second is a main clausephenomenon, i.e. the verb does not appear in ‘second’ position when an overtcomplementizer is present. It has therefore been argued that the verb in a verb-second construction moves to C (cf. den Besten 1983). The reason behindthis movement might be that certain features in C must be lexicalized. If thisis correct, one might expect more morphology on verbs in C than on thosenot moved to second position. However, even though there is a difference

THE LOSS OF VERBAL AGREEMENT AND VERB-MOVEMENT 153

in morphology in a number of cases, the morphology of verbs in C, as in (1)from Dutch, is no richer than of those not in second position, as in (2).Under certain circumstances, the morphology on verbs in second position iseven weaker, i.e.geef ‘give’ rather than the regular second persongeeft‘give-2’, as in (3) (cf. Abraham 1995 for similar evidence in German):

(1) Vandaaggeeft zij hem een boektoday gives she him a book

(2) dat zij hem vandaag een boekgeeftthat she him today a book gives

(3) Waaromgeef jij me altijd een boek?why give you me always a book

One explanation may be that agreement features are present in both C in (3)and in the VP in (2) but that they differ. Evidence for this is provided bydata in Zwart (1997) and Hoekstra & Smits (1998), even though they arguefor a different analysis. Hoekstra & Smits show that, in many dialects ofDutch displaying complementizer agreement, the agreement on the comple-mentizer, as in (4) from East Overijssels, is the same as that on the verbwhen it moves to C, as in (5) but different when the verb does not move(only the verbal ending is in bold):

(4) date wy speultthat- we play-

‘that we are playing.’

(5) Speule wyplay- we‘Are we playing.’

In languages such as Standard German, when the verb moves, the inflectionis not stronger and in Old English, the reverse is even true: Jespersen (1942)and Quirk & Wrenn (1957) suggest that verbs that precede their subjectsdisplay less inflection than those that follow. This lack of inflection insentences with verb-movement is problematic for a theory that assumesstrong inflection to be the trigger for movement. In 4.2, I examine this lossof inflection in verb-movement and conclude that it is partially the case inthe Old English ofBeowulf, The Junius Manuscript, The Exeter Book, TheVespasian Psalter, The Lindisfarne Gospels, The Rushworth Glosses, TheParis Psalter, and Alfred’s and Ælfric’s works when verb-movement occurs.


Ever since the introduction of AgrS and T by Pollock (1989) andChomsky (1989), there has been a debate as to whether all languages havethese FCs (e.g. Cinque 1996) or whether a language learner needs explicitevidence to posit both (e.g. van Gelderen 1993; Thráinsson 1996). Chomskydoes not assume a relationship between rich inflection and the presence ofboth AgrS and T. Bobaljik & Jonas (1996), however, do assume such arelationship and argue that in Icelandic, verbs display independent tense andagreement morphology and therefore both T and AgrS are activated. Asindependent evidence for the claim that two functional projections occur inIcelandic, they present expletive constructions, such as (6), argued to have astructure with two Specifier positions, as in (7). Thus,Það would be inSpecAgrSP whereasmargir strákarwould be in SpecTP:

(6) Það borðuðu margir strákar bjúgun ekki öllthere ate many boys the-sausages not all‘Many boys did not eat all of the sausages.’(from Bobaljik & Jonas 1996: 214)

(7) AgrSP [There V TP [NP Object not VP]].

The same claim about the presence of AgrSP and TP would have to be madefor French where both tense andφ-features are discernable on the verb, e.g.arriv-er-a, arrive--3 ‘he will arrive’, even though expletive constructionssuch as (6) do not occur (*Il est une femme arrivé(e)‘there arrived a woman’is ungrammatical). Hence, French is problematic for Bobaljik & Jonas.

In English, as Bobaljik & Jonas (1996) claim, tense and agreementcannot both be marked: past-ed and third person-s are in complementarydistribution (hence the ungrammatical *she walk-ed-sor *she walk-s-ed).They argue that TP and AgrSP are both present if “tense and agreementmorphemes co-occur at least somewhere in the paradigm of main verbs” (p.230). This means that, in Modern English, there is only one FC, as arguedin van Gelderen (1993). As will be shown, Old English verbs are specifiedfor tense and for mostφ-features yet do not display any of the characteristicsof a language with even one FC (i.e. I), such as Modern English, let aloneboth AgrS and T. Even though it is hard to find evidence for FCs in OldEnglish, witness the debate about whether the I position in Old Englishprecedes the VP or follows it (cf. Roberts 1996), and whether there is, asmany assume, covert movement to such a position. In this chapter, I oppose


both taking FCs for granted and positing covert movement to them. I claimthat FCs are only activated if there is direct evidence.

In Old English, the present and past (preterite) tenses are distinguishedin that, in the past tense, the weak verbs have a-d-, the strong verbs have astem change and the irregular verbs have suppletive forms. For instance,lufian ‘love’ is a weak verb of class II (has an -a- in second and thirdsingular indicative). Its first person present isic lufie ‘I love’ and a firstperson past isic lufode ‘I loved’. Thus, if overt tense marking on the verbimplies that the language has a TP, Old English should have TP.

Person and number are distinguished for the singular present tense, forinstance,ic lufie ‘I love’, þu lufast ‘you love’, he/heo/hit lufað‘he/she/itloves, but not for the plural where only number is distinguished:we lufiað‘we love’, ge lufiað‘you- love’, hi lufiað ‘they love’ (cf. Quirk & Wrenn1957: 43; also Campbell 1959: 295–351). The subjunctive has a singular-eending and a plural-en. There are of course many variants and manydifferent verb classes but they all make similar distinctions. For weak verbsin the past tense, the second person singular (-est) is different from the firstand third persons singular (-e) and from the plural (-on). Strong verbs in thepast tense distinguish first and third from second person as well. In theimperative and subjunctive moods, only singular and plural are distinguished.Thus, on Old English verbs, number is distinguished consistently but persononly sometimes. Table 4.1 shows some of the distinctions for strong verbs,and Table 4.2 for weak verbs of class I (there are 3 classes):

Table 4.1.Old English strong verbal inflection

Present

123

-e-(e)s(t)-(e)ð-að

Imperative 22

–

-að

Preterite

123

–-e–-un, -on, an


Table 4.2.Old English weak verbal I inflection

Present

123

-e-(e)s(t)-(e)ð-að

Imperative 22

-e/–

-að

Preterite

123

-de-des(t)-de-dun, -don, dan

These inflections should suffice to trigger an AgrSP as well as a TP ifBobaljik and Jonas (1996) are correct since both tense and agreement areovert in e.g.þu lufo-d-est, you- love--2 ‘you loved’.

The endings in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 are reduced, especially for the plural,if one compares these paradigms with Gothic, for example, where all pluralpersons are distinguished (nimam ‘take-1’, nimiþ ‘take-2’, and nimand‘take-3’, cf. van Hamel 1931: 149–50). This reduction in inflection makesthe plural features less specified and may be the reason that pro-drop in theplural is less common (as shown in Chapter 3).

Jespersen (1942: 15) writes “[i]n OE a difference is made in the plural,according as the verb precedeswe or ge or not” and Quirk & Wrenn(1957: 42) remark that “[t]here are alternative 1 and 2 forms of all tensesand moods in-e when the pronouns … immediately follow” the verb.Campbell (1959: 296) says: “[w]hen a pronoun of the 1st or 2nd pers.follows, the endings-þ, -on, -en can be reduced to-e”. To put theseobservations in terms of verb-movement, it appears that, when the verbmoves to C, as in (8), there is less inflection (-e) than when it does notmove, as in (9) (-aþ) (the verb endings are in bold). Sentence (8) is animperative, but the appropriate ending would be-að sincege is plural. If itwere a subjunctive, the ending would be-en:

(8) Beo 2529Gebide ge on beorge‘Wait (you) on the hill.’

(9) Beo 1340ge feor hafað fæhðe gestæledyou far have a feud inflicted‘You have gone far to inflict a feud.’


The data in (8) and (9) are unexpected in a system where rich inflection islinked to overt movement. For verb forms withwe and ge, I find someevidence of an alternative, less inflected, form inBeowulf, The Paris Psalter,Alfred, and Ælfric, even though the full inflection predominates, but noevidence inThe Vespasian Psalter, Junius, andExeter. In theLindisfarneandRushworthversions of Matthew, there is more reduction. In the followingsections, I examine this and in 4.4, I provide a tentative account.

In this section, I have discussed the relationship assumed in some workbetween inflection and verb-movement and between inflection and FCs, andsuggested that the data do not support these relationships.

4.2 Old English

In examining Old English inflection, I start with first and second person pluralendings since handbooks and grammars often list these as having reduced in-flection.1 Next, I look at first and second person singular since there is someevidence of reduced inflection, before turning to third person where, in OldEnglish at least, inflection is not reduced. As mentioned, by reduced inflec-tion I mean a lack of person or number marking, and a verb form usuallyidentical to the non-finite form, as in Modern EnglishI have [aj hæv].

4.2.1 First and second person plural

In this section, I show that there is little evidence of reduced inflection inBeowulfand Junius, the earlier poetic texts but some inThe Paris Psalter

1. Crosslinguistically, there is evidence that first and second person features are weaker. Forinstance, Solá (1996: 236) presents evidence from Italian dialects where first and second personobject pronouns, as in (i), need not trigger agreement on the participle whereas third personones, as in (ii), do:

(i) Le ha viste/*vistothem has seen-./*seen-.

‘S/he has seen them..’

(ii) Ci ha viste/vistous has seen-./seen-.

‘She has seen us..’


and in the later prose writings ascribed to Alfred. There is quite a lot ofreduction in the NorthumbrianLindisfarne Gospels, but this is neiter relatedto person nor to word order. In texts by Ælfric, there is a lot of reduction offirst and second person in VS constructions.

In Beowulf, there are 17 instances ofge ‘you-’, as in (10). In 2 ofthese, (8) above and (11), the verb precedes the subject. One, namely (11),has full inflection for plural2 but the other, namely (8), has reduced inflec-tion. First personwe occurs 25 times but in the 2 instances where the verbprecedeswe the inflection is full, as in (12):

(10) Beo 245–6ne ge leafnesword guðfremmendra gearwe ne wissonnot you password warriors completely not knew

(11) Beo 237Hwæt syndon ge searohæbbendra‘What are you warriors.’

(12) Beo 270Habbaþ we to þæm mæran micel ærende‘We have for the celebrated a great message.’

The ninth-century MercianVespasian Psaltershows no reduction withweorge. There are only 3 VS constructions, as in (13) to (15), and the endings inboth VS and SV are the same:

(13) VP, 33.3 uphebbað we noman his betwinumand exalt- we name his …

(14) VP, 136.4hu singað we songhow sing- we song

(15) VP, 61.3hu longe onraesað gehow long rush- you

2. With most verbs, the -on ending is a preterite. In the case of verbs such aswitan ‘know’,sculan‘have to’ andcunnon‘know’, -on indicates a present indicative plural.


In Junius, 75 instances ofweoccur of which 9 are ‘inverted’ with the inflectedverb. In one of these, namely (16), the inflection is-an rather than-on, butwhether that is reduced, a sound change, or scribal error is unclear. It couldalso be a subjunctive, in which case, the ending should be-en. In the sametext, there are 19ge forms of which 2 are inverted without loss of inflection:

(16) Christ and Satan 298Deman we on earðan‘Judge we on earth.’

In Exeter, of the 124 instances ofwe, 10 follow the verb and, again, the only‘reduction’ is a change from-on to -un and -an (e.g. in l. 1895). This‘reduction’ also occurs when the verb follows the subject (e.g. in ll. 1834and 2086) and seems therefore a regular sound change. There are 91gepronouns of which 8 are inverted, but none of these have reduced inflection.

A substantial change in inflection can be seen in the NorthumbrianLindisfarne Gospels. Holmqvist (1922: 2) mentions that, apart from solitaryearlier instances,Lindisfarne, The Durham Ritual(not discussed here), andthe Northumbrian part ofRushworthare the first texts where -s appears thisway (and in third person singular and plural). According to Berndt’s(1956: 114ff.) numbers, first person plural present indicative is reduced morethan half of the time inLindisfarne (i.e. it has 31 reduced endings and 28(a)ð ones). Second person plural is more often reduced, namely in 65% ofthe present indicative endings, but especially in Matthew (94%). This doesnot correlate directly with the pro-drop data of Table 3.1, since secondperson pro-drop is slightly more frequent with second person plural than withfirst. However, there is a link in that the imperative ending is often reduced,as in (18), when the subject pronoun is present. The West-Saxon version of(18), provided in (19), is interesting since the ending is present but thepronoun is not. This is also true in the Mercian section ofThe RushworthGlosses, as in (20):

(17) Lindisfarne, Matthew, 3.9 nællas ge cuoeða bitiuh iuih faderwe habbas abrahamand not-want you say between you father we have abraham‘And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham as ourfather.’


(18) Idem, 7.7gebiddas ge gesald bið iuhsoecað ge ge infindes and geask you and given be you seek you and you find and youbegeattas cnysaþ and cnyllas ge and un-tyned bið iuhget knock and knell you and opened be you‘Ask and it shall be given to you; seek and you shall find; knock andit shall be opened for you.’

(19) West Saxon, Matthew 7.7Biddaþ eow bið geseald. seceað ge hit findaþ cnuciað eow biþontyned.

(20) Rushworth, idembiddaþ eow bið sald. soecaþ ge gemoetaþ cnyssaþ eow biþontyned.

The word order seems irrelevant as the 2 forms in (17) show. In the WestSaxon version, this is different in that the inflection for first and secondplural is often reduced in VS constructions, as in (21):

(21) West Saxon, Matthew 6.31Nellen ge eornustlice beonnot-want you earnestly to-be

The Paris Psalter(in West-Saxon but probably from an Anglian original,date unknown) has a number of reduced verb forms whenge follows, as in(22), but this is not consistent, as (23) shows. Some of these are imperatives,but even then the ending should be-að:

(22) Paris Ps 74.4Nelle ge unriht ænig fremmannot-want you unjust any advance‘Do not wish to advance evil.’

(23) Idem, 61.10Nellað ge gewenan welan unrihtenot-want you imagine riches unjust‘You don’t want to imagine unjust riches.’

Herold (1968: 52) gives a number of instances of reduced inflection afterweandge in Alfred’s translation ofOrosius. In theMeters of Boethius, ascribedto Alfred, there are several instances of reduced verbal inflection in VS


constructions such as (24), and (26) to (28). In the Helsinki Corpus (the pre-950 part), there are 5willað ‘want-’ endings connected withwe; 4 of thosehavewepreceding and only 1 haswe following the verb. The reduced formwille never followswebut always precedes it, as in (26) and (27). There are3 instances ofhabbaðand in all of them,we precedes the verb; in the 2instances ofhabbe/hæbbeandwe, the verb precedes the subject, as in (28):

(24) Meters 2.16–7Forhwam wolde ge, weoruldfrynd mine, secgan‘Why do you want, my friends-of-the-world, to say.’

(25) Idem, 19.15Hwæðer ge willen… secan‘Do you want to seek.’

(26) Boethius, 85.8Hwæt, wille we þonne secgan‘What, do we want to say …’

(27) Idem 22.23Ac hwæt wille we cweðan‘But what do we want to say.’

(28) PC 45.12ðonne hæbbe we begen fet gescode‘then have we both feet shod.’

In Ælfric’s Homilies (from theDictionary of Old Englishversion), most VSconstructions have reduced inflection withge, as in (29) and (30), and withwe, as in (31) to (33).3 For instance, inHomilies II, there are 384 instancesof ge, of which 72 are VS. All but 9 of these lack inflection on the verb (and7 of the full forms involvesint, a suppletive form of the verbto be). In thesame text, there are 677 instance ofwe, of which 52 are inverted. All but 3of these lack inflection (2 again involvesint). Some of these might beimperative, but even then the ending is reduced:

(29) Hom I, 280.4Nu hæbbe ge gehyred …now have you heard

3. For instances ofwille we, see 104.7 and 220.27.


(30) Idem, 286.15Ac wite ge ðæt nan man ne mæg …but know you that no man not may

(31) Idem, 88.32Nelle we ðæs race na leng teonnot-want we that argument no longer extend

(32) Idem, 154.22–3Nu hæbbe we þæt leoht on urum mode … and we habbað …now have we that light on our mind and we have-3

(33) Idem 158.25Nu bidde we …now ask we

For convenience, the results for the two series ofHomiliesare summarized inTable 4.3. Since the verbal endings in SV constructions are not lost, I onlyprovide the data on inflection in VS constructions. The total number of firstperson plural forms (both VS and SV) inHomilies I is 681 and inHomilies II677; the number of second person plural constructions is 424 and 384 respec-tively. In Table 4.3, I have included as full inflection both present-aðendingsas well as preterite-on endings (subjunctive-enendings do not occur):

Table 4.3.First and second person plural inflection in VS constructions

Inflection: -e/Ø full suppletive total

Hom I12

4946

22

33

5451

Hom II12

4963

12

27

5272

From the data presented, we can conclude that in Early Old English there issome loss of first and second person plural endings, with an increase ofreduction in VS constructions. By the time of Ælfric, practically all verbsfollowed byweor ge lack inflection.


4.2.2 First and second person singular

Compared to Gothic-a and Old Saxon-u, the Old English inflection withfirst person present singular is reduced to-e, especially in the southerndialects. In these dialects, the optative -e replaces the original indicativeearly on. The older Germanic forms are still found in the heavy (Anglian)endings-o and-u. Sievers/Brunner (1942: 282–3) take-u to be older than-o.These, and an occasional-a, occur in the northern Mercian and Northum-brian dialects.Beowulf is a southern text in this respect since out of 181instances ofic only 3 forms have a full ending, as in (34) to (36). They alloccur in SV constructions. There are 2 instances of possibly further reducedinflection withwen(e), as in (37) and (38), both VS constructions; when theword order is reversed, the ending is as in (38). The forms withwen(e)might also be subjunctives, but their ending would still be expected to be-e:

(34) Beo 2150ic lyt hafo‘I have little.’

(35) Beo 2523forðon ic me onhafu / bord ond byrnan‘Therefore I have on me a shield and a coat of mail.’

(36) Beo 3000ðæs ðe ic wenhafo‘that of which I have hope.’

(37) Beo 442Wen ic þæt he wille‘Hope I that …’

(38) Beo 338wen ic þæt ge for …‘Hope I that you …’

(39) Beo 279þæs icwene‘That I hope …’

This is all the evidence I find inBeowulf. I disregard the past tense since withstrong verbs there is no ending and with weak verbs, there is only an-e.


In the Junius Manuscript, there are no unreduced endings, but in theExeter Bookthere are 6 endings in-o and-u, as in (40), 1 of which is a VSstructure (not listed here):

(40) Exeter, Riddle 35, 5Wundene me ne beoð wefle, ne ic wearphafuwound me not are woofs nor I warp have‘Woofs are not wound for me, nor have I a warp.’

In the Helsinki Corpus (OEI-II), there are 54 first person endings in-u and14 in -o, and except for 3, all of them are SV. All are from theVespasianPsalter. Sievers/Brunner (1942: 283) claim “von den merc. Texten hat Vesp.Ps. ganz überwiegend-u, bzw. bei den schwachen Verbis der II. Kl.-iu,seltener-o bzw. -io, daneben je einŠebidda, seŠcŠa und einigee-Formen”.Zeuner (1882: 92ff.) lists some interesting instances of an-m ending withathematic stems, as in (41):

(41) VP, Ps 142, 7 ic beom gelic astigendu in seað‘and I am like moving up in the well.’

For the NorthumbrianLindisfarne Gospels, Berndt (1956: 95ff.) lists the firstperson form predominantly as-o, with fewer than 10 reductions of the ending.The ending is only reduced when the subject is present (see 4.2.4 below).

As to the other texts dealt with in this book, inThe Paris Psalterand theworks of Alfred and Ælfric, the present tense endings are mainly-e inkeeping with the West Saxon character of these texts.

Comparing the Old English second person singular with its Gothic andother Germanic counterparts, one notices the addition of a-t to the-sending.Most Old English grammarians argue that this “arose in inverted forms, e.g.ritstu< rides þu” (Campbell 1959: 297), and that the “earlier ending is foundin some texts” (Quirk & Wrenn 1957: 42). Jespersen (1942: 6) agrees that-st“is no doubt due to the frequent use of combinations of verb and the pro-noun”. The development is said to have occured independently in Old HighGerman where, up to the present day, the second person present tense is-st.Later on, in English, the-t is lost again, starting in the North. This scenarioseems unlikely to me for the following reasons: (a) If forms such ashafest


originate inhafestu, one expectstu to replaceþu but tu is very infrequent;4

(b) It is unexpected to have the same development in different languages,i.e. in Old English and Old High German; and (c) forms such ashafestuareinfrequent (16 times in the OE part of the Helsinki Corpus, once inJunius,and once in theParis Psalter). For these reasons, I assume that in OldEnglish, it is not the pronoun that determines the ending but that the regularsecond person ending is (already)-st which may be weakened to-s.5

There are 69 instances of second person singular inflection inBeowulfand even though 11 of these are ‘inverted’, the inflection is not reduced as,for instance, (42) shows:

(42) Beo 1221Hafast þu gefered þæt …‘You have achieved that.’

In Junius, there are 201 instances of the second person singular and 6 of the 41‘inverted’ ones have less inflection, i.e.-esrather than-st, as in (43). InExeter,there are 318 second person singular pronouns. Many are inverted and some arereduced for agreement, as in (44) to (46). Sentence (44) could be an imperativein which case the null ending would be required. Sentence (45) is a preterite,and (46) is an imperative. The pronoun is nevertu, which would be expectedif the reduction to-s originates in the contraction of the V and pronoun:

(43) Christ and Satan 59Wendes ðu ðurh wuldor ðæt þu woruld ahtestbelieve you through splendor that you the world own

(44) Juliana 87Dem þu hi to deaþejudge you them to death

(45) Christ 1384nysses þu wean ænige dælnot-knew you lack any part‘You knew no sorrow.’

4. In the Helsinki Corpus, there are 22 instances oftu before 950 (OE I-II) but only 3 in theperiod after (OEIII, from 950–1050).

5. Zeuner (1882: 94) notes that in the Vespasian Psalter with athematic verbs the ending isusually -st, whereas with thematic verbs, in the majority of cases it is-s.


(46) Resignation 59Forstond þu mec ond gestyr himdefend you me and restrain them

In the MercianVespasian Psalter, the majority of second person endings is-esbut the word order is not relevant. In the Mercian part ofThe RushworthGlosses(Matthew), written a century later, most end in-st (cf. also Berndt1956: 98–9). In theLindisfarne Gospels, the vast majority (91%) has areduced ending. Thus, the more northern the text the more reduced theendings are.

The West-SaxonParis Psalter is similar to the works of Alfred andÆlfric. In Alfred, there are a number of reductions. Sweet (1871: xxxiv)says “[t]he ending of the 2 occasionally appears without the finalt”, as in(47). There are also instances of reduced inflection with SV order though, as(48) shows:

(47) PC, 193.3ðonnehafas ðu ðin we[d] gesealdthen have you your pledge given6

(48) Idem, 207.11ðe ðu on iuguðeworhteswhich you in youth wrought

In the Helsinki Corpus (pre-950), some more instances from Alfred can be found:

(49) Alfred,Boethius, 118.29For hwylcum oðrum ðingumwoldes þu þæt sprecanfor which other things wanted you that say

(50) Idem, 122.28–9hwæðernewoldes þu demanwhich wanted you to judge

In Ælfric’s Homilies, there are many instances of reduced inflection in VSstructures, which is expected if the inflection on a second person singularverb is gradually lost. There seems to be less reduction than with first andsecond person plural, however. Thus, in Ælfric’sHomilies II, there are 454

6. The other manuscript (Cotton) included in Sweet hashafast.


instances of the second person singular pronoun, but at least half of these donot lose their inflection. The pronoun is nevertu, again indicating that theverbal ending is not reduced because of the contracted form.

In short, first person singular is reduced inBeowulf, Junius, and otherWest Saxon texts. It is not completely reduced inExeter and it is notreduced at all in the Mercian VP and very slightly in the NorthumbrianLindisfarne. Second person singular is not reduced inBeowulf, but issomewhat reduced inExeter, Junius, and the West Saxon Gospel version,and quite reduced in the VP and inLindisfarne.

4.2.3 Third person

As to third person inflections, there is little evidence of a reduction in OldEnglish even in inverted constructions. Later on, the ending changes from-þto -s, starting in the North. Gradually, the northern paradigm becomes-sthroughout (except for first person singular). Jespersen’s (1942: 17) explana-tion for the change is thats is more ‘efficient’ than-þ. According to Sievers/Brunner (1942: 284), the reason is “ungeklärt” but the replacement occursmore frequently in the plural than in the singular (cf. also Holmqvist1922: 9). This is the same as with first and second person, where the pluralchanges before the singular.

In Beowulf, there are 2 instances of the same expression, wherewisse, asin (51), might be seen as a reduced inflection. Quirk & Wrenn (1957: 56),however, list it as an alternative towiste, occurring throughout the paradigm:

(51) Beo 2339wisse he gearwe‘knew he well’

With feminine and plural pronouns, no instances of reduced inflection arefound inBeowulf. No evidence of reduced inflection when the third personpronoun follows the verb can be found inExeter, Junius, Alfred or Ælfric,as is shown in (52) to (54) for the Ælfric:

(52) Hom II, 27.278Þonnehæfð he wiðsacen‘Then has he rejected.’


(53) Idem, 27.275Þonneaxað he eftthen ask-3 he afterwards

(54) Idem, 24.183Næfð he na culfran ðeawasnot-has he no dove’s virtues‘He doesn’t have a dove’s virtues.’

In the more northern texts, e.g.LindisfarneandRushworth, there is a partialchange from -th to -s, but never a complete reduction. Holmqvist (1922: 7;13) counts 271-s and 86-ð third person singular endings in the Matthewportion ofLindisfarne, i.e. a reduction in 76% of the time. In the same text,there are 161-s and 30-ð third person plural endings, i.e. a reduction in84% of endings.Rushworth (Matthew) and theVespasian Psalter, bothMercian texts, have -ð endings, as in (55), very different from, for instance,the second person endings:

(55) VP, 9.8 he doemeð ymbhwyrft in efennisseand he judges the-world in equality‘and he judges the world fairly.’

So far, I have shown that verbal inflection is lost with first and secondperson subjects, especially with plural ones and much less with third person.This fits with what I have argued in the previous chapter, namely that firstand second person features are less specified for overt checking. In the nextsubsection, I look at this connection in more detail.

4.2.4 The link to pro-drop

Many have argued that in Germanic and Romance languages (as opposed toChinese, Japanese, and Korean, for instance), there is a link between pro-drop and agreement (see previous chapter). In this subsection, I show thatthis is sometimes the case in Old English, but that there are texts that eventhough they have full inflection have limited pro-drop. This is in accordancewith observations by Hermon (1991: 419) for Late Latin that pro-dropdisappears before agreement is lost, which means that the strength orweakness of features is not directly reflected in overt morphology.


In texts such asBeowulf, Exeter, andJunius, there is little reduction ofagreement and, as expected, pro-drop occurs. However, pro-drop is moreprevalent with third person, suggesting that first and second person featuresare less specified, even though this is not apparent from the morphology. Thedifference in endings betweenLindisfarne and Rushworth, as in (18) and(20) above, however, provides some evidence for a direct link: when thesecond person plural is reduced to-as, the subject appears. With secondperson singular, as in (56) and (57), pro-drop also results in full agreement:

(56) Lindisfarne, Matthew 26.75ær ðon ðe hona creawa ðriga mec onsæcestbefore that the rooster crows thrice me- deny-2‘Before the rooster crows three timesyou shall deny me.’

(57) Lindisfarne, Matthew, 5.25uæs ðu geðafsum wiðerbracæ ðinum hraðe miððybist in uoeg …be you in-agreement adversaries yours quickly while are on way ‘Agree with your adversaries quickly whileyou are on your way …’

In the MercianRushworth Glosses, a pronoun is inserted in (57) but in (56),pro-drop and verbal ending remain. In the West-Saxon versions, a pronounis inserted in both, even though the verbal ending is retained.

In Old English, first and second person tend to be less expressed on theverb and there tends to be less pro-drop with these. It is often the case thatwith pro-drop the agreement is present, as in (56) and (57). Thus, reduced(less specified) verbal agreement often requires an overt subject. This isrelated to the data discussed in Chapter 1. There, the features of first andsecond person are argued to be less specified since first and second personpronouns continue to function reflexively although they lose inherent Case.

A related aspect obvious from 4.2.1 to 4.2.3 is that verbal agreement islost in VS constructions, i.e. when the verb moves. This presents problemsfor an approach that links rich morphology and overt movement. That linkis therefore questioned later in this chapter. This raises the problem of howto account for the lack of inflection in C in a checking (or any other) system.I come back to that in 4.4. First, however, I continue to examine verbalagreement after the Old English period.


4.3 Middle and Early Modern English

After the changes in verbal inflections discussed above, others occurthroughout the history of English (Wyld 1907; Jespersen 1942; McIntosh1989). Thus, second person singular -stdisappears; third person -eðbecomes-s; and plural changes from -að to -enand then disappears. The third personsingular is the only inflection left in Modern (standard) English. The changeis often examined in terms of dialect differences since it occurs first innorthern dialects (c.1000) and last in southern ones. Around 1600, there arestill some remnants of Old English inflection in the South. This section isnot organized by person marking but by the relative age of the texts.

4.3.1 Early Middle English

Verbal endings for the present for both strong and weak verbs in thedifferent dialects of Middle English are given in Table 4.4. I will not dealwith the preterite but here the endings are even more reduced:

Table 4.4.Middle English present indicative verbal inflection

North Midlands South

Present S

P

123

-(e)-es-es-es

-e-est, (-es)-es, -eth-es, -e(n)

-e-(e)st-eth-eth

This table enables us to compare inflection in the different texts.In the twelfth-century West-SaxonThe History of the Holy Rood Tree

(HRT), there is very little loss of endings. As Napier (1894: lvi) puts it: “theverb exhibits scarcely any deviation from the OE. usage”. For instance,second person singular-st is the normal ending and the indicative plural isfull, as in (58):

(58) HRT, 6.19ðe we on bilyfæðwhich we in believe-

First person endings are typically-e, and are not reduced further, but sec-ond singular and first and second plural are. The text is short but the VS


constructions generally have less inflection, as in (59) and (60). In (59), 2VS constructions occur with a loss of inflection and in (60), 1 VS occurswith loss of inflection and 1 SV occurs with full inflection:

(59) HRT, 18.7Hwætbeo Še oððe hwanoncume Še‘Who are you and where do you come from.’

(60) HRT, 16.5–6yfele cwæde ðu þæt ðu þa halŠæn mæŠne toŠyrdonnæmdestevilly spoke you that you the holy power to rods named‘You spoke evil when you ascribed the holy power to the branches.’

This reduction does not occur with third person, where the ending is always full.In the thirteenth-century south-west Midlands Caligula version of

Layamon’sBrut, two endings are possible, in accordance with Table 4.4. Thesituation with first and second person plural is particularly striking. Of the177 instances ofŠe ‘you-’, 42 occur after the verb, as in (61), and only 7of these have inflections (most of which are already different from OldEnglish), as in (62); 35 show reduced inflection. The remaining instanceswhereŠe precedes the verb are all inflected, as in (63) and (64), even thoughin 7 of these the inflection is “interlined or added in the margin of themanuscript” (Brook & Leslie 1963: ix), which the angular brackets show in(65). The lack of inflection in VS constructions, such as (61), was neveraltered later:

(61) Caligula 2223Whærbeo Še mine cnihtes‘Where are you, my knights.’

(62) Caligula 9643For no biden Še nauereŠiuen gode‘Because you await no good gifts.’

(63) Caligula 2302Nu Šebeon alle dead‘Now you are all dead men.’

(64) Caligula 353Še sculen habben lif leomen‘You shall keep life and limbs.’


(65) Caligula 442Šif Še hit wille[ð] ich hine wlle spillen‘If you want I will kill him.’

In the (arguably) later, or less archaic, Otho version, many of the verbs inSV constructions have lost the inflection, assolle in (67) andmawein (69)show when compared tosculenin (66) andmaŠen in (68):

(66) Caligula 718Še huntieð i þes kinges friðe. þer-foreŠe sculen beon fæieŠe doð þan kinge muchel scome. þer-foreŠe sculen han grome‘You hunt in the king’s park. Therefore you shall be doomed.You injure the king. Therefore you shall have anger.’

(67) Otho, idemŠe honteþ in þis kinges parc. þar-foreŠe solle deŠeŠe doh þan kinge mochel same. þar-foreŠe solle habbe grame.

(68) Caligula 8706for nu Še maŠŠen heom h[e]bbenbecause now you can them lift

(69) Otho, idemfor nouŠemawe heom hebbe.

Regarding first person plural, there are 495 instances ofwe in Caligula andthe same relation between VS and reduced inflection and SV and fullinflection can be found as in the cases ofgediscussed above: 74 of the 100VS structures, as in (70), are reduced. The inflected ones, as in (72), nolonger have an-ð ending; at most the inflection is-n, as in (72). Most SVstructures, as in (71), are inflected and not just with-n:

(70) Caligula 537Nulle we noht þis on-fon. ah we faren wlle[ð]not-want we not this accept but we go want

(71) Caligula 189ær we nulleð mid frescipe. faren from ure feondebefore we not-want in freedom go from our foes

(72) Caligula 6776nefden we noht to drinken‘we did not have anything to drink.’


In the later Otho version, all inflections drop in pre-subject position andmany in post-subject position as well. Summarized in a table, the figures forCaligula are as follows and show a considerable reduction of verbal inflec-tion in VS constructions:

Table 4.5.First and second person plural in VS in Caligula

reduced full total

12

074 (=74%)035 (=83%)

26 (=26%)07 (=17%)

100042

Total 109 33 142

First person singular does not lose more of the already reduced inflection-e (cf. Böhnke 1906). The second person-estending is used less in the laterversion of Layamon and especially less in inverted position, as in (73).However, the second person ending is never reduced the way first andsecond person plural are. In the early-thirteenth-century Caligula version, theratio of non-inverted-est to inverted-est is 111 : 33 (3.36 : 1); in the mid-thirteenth-century Otho version, it is 85 : 20 (4.25 : 1), i.e. fewer full inflec-tions when the verb is in C. The difference is not statistically significant,however. There are of course other endings as well, but the-st is the mostrecognizable. Looking at all the inverted verbs in Caligula, there is only onereduced form, as in (74). There are some changes between the two versions,such as from (75) to (73), but, except for imperatives and subjunctives thathave reduced inflection, most second person endings remain even in Otho.Apart from (73), there is one other instance, namely (76), where Caligula hasan -st ending:

(73) Otho 9368þanne mihtes þou sone habbe‘than you might soon have.’

(74) Caligula 6371of us naue þu nane sunne‘through us you have no disgrace.’

(75) Caligula 9368þenne mihtest þu þinne iwille‘Then you can have what you want.’


(76) Otho 12821Isext þou louerd þane mont‘See you Lord the mountain’?

The total number of second personþu is 667 in Caligula (and 6 instances ofþou). In 121 instances, the verb precedes the pronoun but most of these arefully inflected, as in (75). In Otho, there are 499 instances ofþou (and 3 ofþu) and only 2 of the VS structures have reduced inflection.

Third person singular endings are generally-þ (or -t) in Caligula, as in(77), but at least one changes to-es in Otho, as in (78):

(77) Caligula 12822þerwuneð þe scaðe inne þascendeð þas leode‘there lives the monster that preys on the people.’

(78) Otho, idemþar woneþ þe feond ine þatsendes þes leode

The third person plural is-en, -eþand -eð, as in (79), regardless of whetherthe word order is SV or VS. The majority is-en though:

(79) Caligula 239heobiddeð þe mid freonscipe. þat þu heom ifreoie‘They are asking you in friendship that you set them free.’

Thus, the situation in Layamon’sBrut is that first and second plural inflec-tions are disappearing, especially in VS position, but first and second personsingular endings remain relatively stable. Third person singular is similar toits Old English counterpart and plural is often-en.

As far as the Katherine Group is concerned, “[t]he Old English verbalsystem is remarkably well preserved in these texts, especially B[odley]”(Logan 1973: 185). The endings are-e for first singular;-(e)st for secondsingular, with an occasional-es in Titus; -(e)ð (or their non-fricative ver-sions) for third singular; and different vowel combinations with-ð for theplural, and-(e)n in Titus. Thus, as also shown in the previous chapter, theperson and number features are specified and pro-drop common, certainly inBodley. Hence, I will not discuss Bodley but will focus on HM from theTitus manuscript.

In Titus, there are fewer instances of pro-drop and this corresponds to theloss of certain inflections, e.g. in the second singular, as in (80). There is no


correlation between word order and inflection, and different forms of thesame verb occur side by side, as in (80), for the preterite second person:

(80) HM (T), 11.90–1þat tuwendes to biŠeten, ’thauest ifunden weane þrin. ’t wondrade riue.And if þat tuwendest gold …‘that you expected to get, and have found sorrow therein, and miseryrife. And if you expected gold …’

The plural changes to-enon occasion, as in (81) (with the Bodley counter-part given in (82)). Again no word order pattern can be discovered:

(81) HM (T), 15.143–4þurh hwan webeon iburhen‘through which we are saved.’

(82) HM (B), 14.138þurh hwam webeoð iborhen

In conclusion, HM has mostly retained the Old English system, at least forthe indicative, and definitely for third person. Word order is not relevant. InTitus, there is some loss/change of first and second person singular andplural, but unlike in Caligula and Otho, this is not related to word order. InHRT, there is a change in VS constructions to the plural-en and to aninflectional loss as in (59) and (60) above. In Caligula, there is loss/changein first and second person plural, especially in VS, which is generalized toSV in Otho. The link to Chapter 3 is that the heavily inflected Bodley HMhas more pro-drop than the less inflected Titus HM, as expected. In HRTand Layamon, there is loss of inflection and relatively little pro-drop, againas expected. In the latter two, word order plays a role for inflection: the lossis tied to movement to functional positions. The link to Chapter 2 is thatthird person pronouns in Layamon and Caligula still function reflexively dueto the presence of inherent Case. In HM, this occurs much less since inherentCase is gone and third person inflection is strong. That makes a third personpronoun a referential element.

4.3.2 Middle English

In the northernCursor Mundi(from around 1300), second and third personsingular endings are -es, as in (83); the first person singular and first, second


and third person plural ending is -e or zero. I have not examined thissystematically, but word order seems to be relevant, as (84) and (85) show:

(83) CM, Cotton, 59–61For wen þow traistes[t] wenis at be …He þat [s]titthestbecause when you most-trusty think to be he that most-strongwenis at standthinks to stand

(84) CM, Cotton, 551For þis resun þatŠŠee haue hardfor this reason that you have heard

(85) CM, Cotton, 580–1to se þe saulhaf ye na might. / Nowhaf .i. sceued yow til hiderto see the soul have you no power now have I shown you so far

In the other northern text from over a century or so later,The York Plays, thefirst person singular and first, second and third person plural inflection is -eor zero, but word order is irrelevant for the different inflections. Secondperson singular is mainly -s and so is third, as in (86) (there are 268 instanc-es ofhasbut only 25 ofhath):

(86) York, 25.150He telles þam so þat ilke a man may fele‘He tells them how such a man may feel.’

Gawain is a Midlands text from the middle of the 14th century. In thischapter, I will confine myself to it and not discuss the other works attributedto the ‘Gawain Poet’. In the case of first person singular and the plurals, theending is-e or zero. Second and third person singular endings are usually-(e)sor -(e)z, as in (87) (and very few forms in -st and -th respectively):

(87) Gawain, 399I wot neuer where þouwonyes‘I don’t know where you live.’

As to verbal inflection in (the more southern and later) Chaucer, the singularforms are explicit than they are inGawain. First person singular is-e orzero, second person is-st (except in irregular forms such aswolt andart),and third person is-th. There are over 12,000 third person singular-thendings, as in (88), and only when fun is being made of Northerners and


they are quoted is the-esending used, as in (89). In (89), the ending mightbe third singular or plural since a coordinated NP often counts as singular;in either case, the ‘northern’ ending would be-es:

(88) Reeve’s Tale, 4016This Aleynmaketh redy al his gere‘This Aleyn prepares his gear.’

(89) Reeve’s Tale, 4023Hou fares thy faire doghter and thy wyf?‘How are your fair daughter and your wife.’

The plural forms, both in the present and in the preterite, are losing the-n.For instance, there are 21 instances ofthey werenin all of Chaucer but 85 ofthey were; 4 instances ofthey wentenbut 11 of they wente; and 7 of theyseydenbut 5 of they seyde. This shows that the ending for certain verbs ismore robust (e.g.seyden) than for others (e.g.weren). When the subjectfollows the verb, as in (90) and (91), the endings are lost as well. In the caseof wenten, the order seems to be irrelevant: 1wenten theyversus 2wentethey. Seydenis more frequent in VS: 3seyden theys versus 1seyde they. Thecase ofwerenis the opposite: 0weren theyversus 13were they:

(90) Melibee, 1765Thanneseyden they with o voys‘Then said they with one voice.’

(91) Knight’s Tale, 2490Unto hir restewenten they at nyght‘To their rest went they at night.’

The situation with first and second person plural is the same. For instance,there are 6 instances ofwe were; 2 of we weren; 3 of were we; and 0 ofweren we. With second person plural, those numbers are: 13 timesye were;1 ye weren; 2 timeswere ye; and 1weren ye. Putting these together gives 35-enendings in SV order out of a total of 155 (=22.6%) and 5-enendings inVS order out of a total of 26 (=19%). Thus, there is no pattern in Chauceras to when the ending is lost.7 Whether or not the verb precedes the subjector vice versa makes no difference for agreement, unlike in Late Old and

7. χ2 = .145 andp< .80.


(Early Middle) English. The second person singular ending is strong and sois the third person singular-eth, even though the plural-en is being lost.

In conclusion, inCursor Mundiand The York Plays, second and thirdperson singular have the same endings, namely-es. The other endings arevery reduced, in keeping with the northern character of the texts. In Gawain,there is more distinction and in Chaucer quite a lot more, since the latter isa southern text. The plural is generally the same for all persons (mostly-ebut some-en in Chaucer). There is no pro-drop which corroborates that theagreement features are weakening. The distinction where reflexives areconcerned is that inCursor Mundi, York, andGawain, third person pronounsoccur with ‘self’ to function reflexively while in Chaucer second and thirdperson do so. So, when the verbal agreement features are ‘stronger’, reflexiveuse of simple pronouns is less likely.

4.3.3 Early Modern English

In the earliest letters included inThe Paston Letters, the third person endingis -th but in the later ones, an occasional-s appears. For instancehath(e)occurs 757 times, buthas only thrice (all after 1473). Reading the letters,Holmqvist (1922: 108ff.) is prompted to say that “-th is the regular endingof the 3” and comes to the conclusion that -swas not in colloquial use inthe early part of the 15th century. The uninflected form is often found (cf.Trudgill 1997 who argues this is still the case in that dialect). As to theplural, “[t]he regular ending of the present indicative plural in the is -e.Only in letters of an older date does-n survive. Besides these regularendings, however,-th is found now and then” (Holmqvist 1922: 116). Thesecond person singular form is obsolete; it is replaced byyeewhich triggersa plural verb form.

Verb-movement in PL is similar to Modern English, i.e. there is no overtmovement of main verbs, as (92) to (94) show, except in a few set expres-sions. In (92) and (93), one would expect inversion after the adverbial if theverb had moved to C, and in (94), the verb would have been expected tomove acrossthis dayif it were in I:

(92) PL #182 (1465)And on the sam day at evynsong tyme Harlestoncom to …


(93) PL #129 (1448)And þerwith Gloysturnedhym and drew owt his dagger.

(94) PL #218 (1472)for the seid Jenney this dayrideth vp to London ward.

The reason for this is that verb movement is no longer overt but checkedthrough feature attraction, as in Modern English. To relate the reflexivesituation in PL to verbal agreement requires an additional assumption. Thisis an assumption I have also made in 0.2 about Modern English in connec-tion to the Chain Condition, namely that simple pronouns cannot functionreflexively due to their Uninterpretable features. This means these featuresare present in PL and make the pronouns referential even though some of thefeatures are underspecified.

As can be seen in relation to reflexives, Shakespeare’s language is inmany ways archaic. Inflection is in keeping with this: the second personsingular verb has an-s(t) ending, and the third person singular a-th or -esending. The plural inflection is an unmarked one, but an occasional-esor -thending can be found (cf. Franz 1909: 153ff.). The vast majority has anunmarked ending, as in (95):

(95) 2 Henry IV, IV, 3, 4They know their duties.

Many have speculated on the difference between-s and -th (see Jespersen1948; Taylor 1972, 1976). It has, for instance, been argued to be relevant tometre. Taylor (1976) shows that in the plays before 1600,-th predominateswhereas in the plays after 1600,-s does. Shakespeare’s increasing use of-smay be indicative of changes in English as well as of his increased maturityand self-confidence. In many instances, as in (96), it may serve as emphasis;in (97), it is used for extra contrast:

(96) Midsummer Night’s Dream, I, i, 199The more I love, the more hehatethme.

(97) Romeo & Juliet, III, v, 29–30Some say the Larkemakessweete Division;This doth not so; for shedividethus.(both from Taylor 1976)


The -th ending disappears in the course of the 17th century except in twoverbs,do andhave(which survive into the 18th century). In Shakespeare’sFirst Folio, the total number of instances ofdoth is 841 and ofdoe’s, doesanddo’s300. Thus, the latter constitute roughly a third of the number ofdoth. Theending ofhath is stronger: 1862 instances ofhathand 418 ofha(’)s, i.e. thelatter is 22% of the former. Here too, Taylor (1972) argues that there is amarked difference in the plays before and after 1600. There are a few mainverbs that have-thmore frequently than-s. One of these few ischoosethwith11 instances as opposed to 3 instances ofchooses. With the verbsay/sai, theregular ending is-s (232 times), not-th (5 times);pleasethandpleaseseachoccur 17 times; withseem, seemespredominates with 110 instances against8 cases ofseemeth; andhathethoccurs 4 times, buthates19.

Looking at the difference betweendoesanddoth, andhasandhath, thetwo verbs with general-th endings, there is a slight indication that wordorder, i.e. verb-movement, is responsible for the reduction in inflection. Iwill discuss that further in 4.5.

In conclusion, after 1200, inflection is increasingly reduced, especially inthe plural and first person singular. For texts such as Gawain and Chaucer,there is an indication that the weakly specified ones render a pronoun non-referential and that the more strongly specified features render it referential.For thePaston Letters(PL), this is not so clear since both verbal agreementand reflexives are quite ‘modern’. For this stage, I assume that Uninterpretablefeatures make a pronoun referential, as in Modern English. Shakespeare’s useis more archaic than that of the Pastons.

4.4 The trigger for C, AgrS, and T

From the above two sections, it becomes clear that verbal agreement is oftenfirst lost in VS constructions. In this section, I raise the issues of where thepreposed verb is (and how that position is triggered) and how agreementtakes place when the verb remains in place. I also speculate on the changesafter 1600.

Because verb-movement is blocked when an overt complementizerappears in subordinate clauses, it is often assumed (e.g. van Kemenade 1987;Roberts 1993; Platzack 1995b) that Old English has V-to-C movement in


main clauses. Around 1400, this rule is said to be lost. Kiparsky (1995)argues against assuming a C-position in all Old English constructions. Heshows that V-to-C movement only occurs in cases where elements such as aquestion (cf. (43) and (44) above) or ahw-element (cf. (45)) trigger a CPand a C. Kiparsky claims that ‘older’ languages such as Vedic Sanscrit,Hittite, and Homeric Greek do not have a C(omplementizer)8 and conse-quently have no verb-second. These languages lack embedded structures andinstead make use of adjunction of main clauses to other main clauses. Asembedding becomes possible, C is introduced. As C is introduced, so isV-to-C and Kiparsky argues that the system of ‘residual’ verb-second (i.e.only in certain contexts) is actually the ancestor of full verb-second ratherthan the other way round. Thus, Modern English “is syntactically the mostconservative of all the modern Germanic languages” (1995: 162). Examiningverb-second with the subject pronouns inBeowulf discussed above, theinversion is indeed found mainly in cases such as (11) and (42) above, notin (98) and (99). InJunius, all instances of main clausehw-words triggerverb-second as in (100) and (101), as do cases of initial negation (assumedto be in SpecCP). In cases such as (102), without the need for a CP, verb-second does not occur:

(98) Beo 350–3Ic þæs wine Deniga / … frinanwille / … ymb þinne siðI that friend Danes- ask want about your conduct‘I want to ask that friend of the Danes about your conduct.’

(99) Beo 427–8Ic þe nu ða / brego Beorht-Dena, biddanwilleI you now then prince noble Dane ask want‘I want to ask you now, noble prince of the Danes …’

(100) Genesis 278“Hwæt sceal ic winnan?” cwæð he‘What shall I gain, said he.’

(101) Genesis 888Hwætdruge þu, dohtor‘What avails you, daughter.’

8. Cf. Lenerz (1985) for the claim that Old High German lacks a C as well as V-to-C move-ment and Abraham (1993) who argues that languages that show paratactic structures lack a CP.


(102) Genesis 2013–4We þæt soðmagon secgan furðurwe that truth may seek further‘We may say that truth further.’

In Exeter, as in (44) to (46) above, overt verb-movement is also triggered byquestions orwh-elements. In all these texts, the inflection is sometimesreduced after verb-movement.

So far, I have followed Kiparsky and argued that C is not alwayspresent. If C is present and the verb moves there, a reduction of agreementmay be the result. I now turn to the possible existence of AgrS and T, i.e. anexpanded I position. As shown in 4.1, number and tense in Old English areunambiguous and, even if not all persons are distinguished, they are in sometenses and, according to Bobaljik & Jonas (1996), this should trigger both Tand AgrS. However, the evidence for these positions is hard to come by asthe traditional tests are not applicable. For instance, there are no expletiveconstructions (they are not introduced until the latter half of the 14th century,cf. van Gelderen 1997), let alone constructions such as (6), showing thatboth SpecAgrSP and SpecTP are used. There are no double auxiliaryconstructions either and, as is well-known, modals are still main verbs, as in(103). As Traugott (1992: 200) puts it: “[n]o two auxiliary verbs may occurin sequence except Pre-modal — Passive (e.g.might be destroyed)”:

(103) Genesis 1006Necan ic Abeles‘I do not know A.’

The first instance of ‘dummy’do occurs in the late 14th century. Theseauxiliary elements are all seen as occupying an FC in Modern English,whereas the Old English data indicate that modals anddo occupy a positionin the VP and not in the functional domain. Infinitivalto is not separate asin Modern English and again provides no evidence for a T or AgrS (formore reasons, cf. van Gelderen 1993). Thus, none of the constructions thatprompt Akmajian, Steele & Wasow (1979) to introduce an position inModern English, i.e. T or AgrS, are encountered in Old English. Severallinguists (Pintzuk 1991; van Kemenade 1987 etc.) argue that Old Englishdoes have a T (or I) position and this is still debated, but actual evidence forboth AgrS and T is hard to find.


Even though agreement and tense are morphologically evident, there isno other evidence for FCs. Therefore, rather than assuming the trigger forFCs to be morphological evidence, as suggested in Bobaljik & Jonas, Isuggest that structural evidence such as overt auxiliary modals and ‘dummy’do in Modern English trigger FCs. If Old English is lacking in FCs, aproblem arises as to how a verb checks agreement in a system without FCs.I now speculate about two possible accounts but point out the difficultiesarising from both.

One possibility is that, in VS constructions, the subject pronoun maycliticize to the verb and ‘express’ agreement that way. Thus, the subject hasbecome verbal agreement and the agreement need not be checked. However,in the texts I examine, there are very few instances of morphologicalmerging between the verb and the subject, which would be expected if thesubject were agreement. It would also be strange to have a pronominalargument in VS but not in SV constructions.

The other possibility is more Minimalist. In Chomsky (1995), agreement(phi-) features are not present in functional heads. Functional heads, such asC and I, have categorial features and may have Case features, and providethe environment whereφ-features can be checked. Since only categorialfeatures can be strong and trigger overt movement in Chomsky (1995), theC position in Old English, once introduced, carries strong categorial featuresthat trigger overt verb-movement. The verb checks itsφ-features eitherinside VP (as it does when it does not move) or in C. Since subjects do notfrequently move to SpecCP, the verb in, for instance, (43) above may notcheck its agreement features in a Spec–Head relationship with the subjectand may wait till LF when the features of the subject are ‘attracted’ to checkthe Case of C. It is known (see Koopman & Sportiche 1991; and vanGelderen 1997) from other languages, e.g. Dutch, that in non-Spec–Headconstructions, agreement is sometimes ‘flawed’. Hence, when the verbchecks itsφ-features in C, it may have been selected from the lexicon andhave optional features added that do not conform to those of the subject.

In cases such as (10) above, agreement is checked without overt move-ment to C (or to any other FC) and, if the conclusions of 2.3 are correct, theFCs are not even present. In fact, Haider (1998) suggests this possibility forModern German. He assumes that the subject agrees in SpecVP withoutmovement (for him, the VP is a mixed category FP/VP). One might assume aprocess similar to inherent Case to be at work (cf. Abraham 1996; Kiparsky


1997; van Gelderen 1996b) to check agreement. In certain languages, theCase an element bears does not depend on position but on aθ-relationshipto the verb (cf. next chapter): for instance, a Goal in Old English gets dative.One could argue the same for agreement. In languages such as Navajo, Hopi,and O’odham, agreement is occasionally checked inherently, i.e. not usingfunctional heads. Thus, in (104) from Navajo, the verb displays doubleagreement: the dual on the verb stem and the singular prefix-sh-. The verbinherently checks itself with all the arguments in the clause (gets dualnumber that way) and then with the ‘real’ subject in the functional projection(gets singular that way):

(104) Kinłánígóó nił deesh’áázhFlagstaff-to 2-with F-1-go.

‘I will go to Flagstaff with you.’

In Old English, however, if agreement can in fact take place inside VP, thereis no empirical evidence for this, as there is in (104). For agreement to occurin VP, one must argue that a verb in a Spec–Head relationship with itssubject in VP can check itsφ-features in this configuration inherently,similar to inherent Case which is related toθ-marking. When a C is present,the verb moves to C and can check its features alternatively in VP or in C.Thus, the Old English main clause possibilities are: (a) only a VP, as in (10),with subjects moving for reasons of topic/focus; and (b) a CP and a VPwhere the verb can either check itsφ-features inside the VP or against C. Cis not the ‘perfect’ checker and reduced features on the verb therefore do notresult in ungrammaticality. After 1400, an I(nflection) position becomesobligatory and verbs move there. As I becomes available,φ-features becomeUninterpretable. This occurs in isolated texts before 1600, e.g.The PastonLetters, and in Modern English.

In Sections 4.2 and 4.3, I argue that there is less agreement on the verbif the subject is first or second person. This is relevant in light of theconclusions in the previous chapters, namely, that first and second person areless ‘specified’. An added complication is that inflection is lost when theverb moves to C. In 4.4, I provide an account for this. In the next section, Idiscuss the demise of overt verb-movement. This is relevant for showing thatmorphology and overt movement are not linked and is in accordance withwhat I have argued in 4.1. As far as the main argument of the book isconcerned, it is less relevant.


4.5 Changes in verb-movement

Around 1400, verb-movement to I is generally assumed to be widespread (cf.e.g. van Kemenade 1987; Kiparsky 1997). I examine the evidence thatinflection is related to overt movement before and after 1400. As seen in 4.4,before 1400 and in Shakespeare, there is less inflection in VS constructions;around 1400, e.g. in Chaucer, there is no evidence that word order isrelevant. In fifteenth century PL, the situation is as in Modern English.

If verb-movement is related to morphological marking, it would beexpected to change as well. However, as mentioned regarding pre-1400Layamon, even though inflection is lost between the two versions, as shownin examples (68) to (69) above, verb-movement remains stable. For instance,of the 177 instances ofŠe ‘you’ in Caligula, 43 are VS (ratio SV:VS is4.11:1); in Otho, these numbers are 97 and 22 (ratio is 4.41:1). This is notstatistically significant.9 Checking verb-second afterþus, there is roughly thesame amount of verb-movement. Even though the same is not true withþenne/þanne‘then’, the differences occur because ‘then’-forms in Caligulabecome relatives in Otho, as shown in (105) and (106):

(105) Caligula 1194Þonne he to Triuonantwende. þenneseide he to Wendoleine10

‘then he turned to Trivonant and then said he to Guendoleine.’

(106) Otho idemWane to Trinouantwende. to Gwendoleine heseide.

This stability in verb-second is noteworthy in light of the discussion of OldEnglish above. Thus, there is no relationship inBrut between poor inflection

9. Usingχ2, the result is .056, i.e. a probability of < .90.

10. These cases are also note-worthy in that a lot of the pronouns follow the verb (which doesnot fit with e.g. van Kemenade 1987). Verb-second has been argued to have been analyzed asSVO if one analyzes the clitics as regular NPs. Chaucer’s English is a problem since it hasregular Verb-second as late as the 1380s. Checking the instances of Verb-second afterthus inChaucer, non-inverted constructions with a full subject occur such asRight thus the Aposteltolde it andAnd thus algates housbondes han(both from theWife of Bath’s Prologue) and non-inverted pronominal subjects (4 instances afterthus in The Knight’s Taleof Thus may we seyenalle) occur. They present a problem if one argues that SVO came into existence through thereanalysis of subject clitics in Verb-second as independent pronouns in SV.


and loss of movement. In fact, there is less inflection when the verbs movesto C in, for instance, (73).

With respect to the activation of FCs, there are very few changesbetween the two versions,11 as is argued in van Gelderen (1993), for exam-ple. In particular, the IP is not used since modals are main verbs,do is notused as a ‘dummy’,12 and Accusative-with-Infinitive constructions withtoin an FC are not present. Expletives are being introduced but are not regular(cf. van Gelderen 1997), which indicates that the Specifier of IP is not anecessary position. Others have claimed that I is present. Kiparsky (1995)argues that the Middle English finite verb may move to I before moving toC. He bases this on data indicating verb-movement in the embedded clause,on the position of verbs in relation to adverbs, and on the licensing ofoblique subjects. However, following Pintzuk (1991), he argues that I is notalways present. The debate as to whether I and IP exist in the Germanic

11. In the Otho version, the C position is used differently, as in (i) wherefor to in Cintroduces an infinitival complement. This sentence corresponds to (ii) in Caligula with a verbin C:

(i) Otho 8570for to worck makie‘to make work.’

(ii) Caligula idemþe cunne wærc makien‘who can make work.’

12. For instance, VP-deletion leavingdo, as it occurs in Modern English, does not take placein Layamon, as (i) and (ii) show. In these, a V rather than a VP is replaced bydo. This eithermeans thatdo does not occupy I yet or that I is not present. Modals are not used in VP-deletedcontexts either, as in (iii) and (iv), only the verb, not the object, has been deleted:

(i) Caligula 9508Þe king hire wende to. swa wapmon sculde to wimmon do‘The king went to her as men typically go to women.’

(ii) Caligula 10061Summe heo gunnen wundrien. swa doð þe wilde cron‘Some they begon to flounder. as does the wild crane.’

(iii) Caligula 2649 wur[ð]ien heom in leoden. al swa mon lauerd scal‘and honor them in the land. as one should (his) lord.’

(iv) Otho, idem… alse man sal his louerd.


languages (with the exception of Modern English) has been a long one(Haider 1990; Bayer & Kornfilt 1990; Reuland & Kosmeijer 1988). Thereason is that different analyses can be given, for instance, for verb-move-ment in the embedded clause: it could be Extraposition or Verb ProjectionRaising rather than finite verb movement to I. Particle positions need not bedecisive either since the particle may be an adverb. Therefore, in whatfollows, I attempt to stay away from the controversy and will just assumethat by 1400 the I position is present, this much being generally accepted.Before this time, a fronted verb ends up in C.

If verb-movement and overt inflection are negatively related, one expectsthat with the introduction of an obligatory I position, the morphology willbecome less specified. This is indeed the case with modals since they areargued to occupy I in Modern English and, as is well-known, Modern Englishmodal verbs, even though they are the ‘finite’ verbs, display no verbalagreement (and the tense distinction is not a real tense distinction). Theinflection ondo, the precursor of an element in I is still present. There are 25cases ofdo, as in (107), but all are either imperative, infinitive or subjunc-tive, and 25 instances ofdoð, as in (108), and 14 ofdeð; there are also 3second person singular pronouns withdest. The infinitival form isdon((n)e):

(107) Caligula 347buten þoudo mine readunless you do my council

(108) Caligula 719Še doð þan kinge muchel scomeyou cause the king much insult

Hence, in pre-1400 English, C is still active and there is less agreement incases of verb-movement.

I now examine Chaucer (late 14th century) where evidence for an I ismore robust. As to verb-movement in Chaucer, there is evidence for an FC inaddition to C (cf. van Gelderen 1993: 103). For instance,do is used in a fewcases and so are Accusative-with-Infinitive constructions. It is, however, hardto determine whether the verb is in I. In (109), it presumably is, but in (110),it could be in C. The movement is not obligatory: in the 41 constructions withinitial then, the verb immediately followsthen in half of the sentences butfollows the subject in the other half. In theAstrolabe, there are 3 instancesof thenand 2 are [thenS V], as in (109), and 1 is [thenV S], as in (110):


(109) Treatise on the Astrolabe II, 12And then ageyn the 8is to Saturne, the 9is to Jupiter, …

(110) Idem, II, 42And thenis 10 feet the altitude of the tour.

As seen in 4.3.2, in Chaucer, there is no relationship between movement andinflection, even though there might be V-to-I movement.

In Shakespeare, i.e. two centuries later, the situation has not changed agreat deal in that movement is still optional, as I will show, and inflection isstill linked to movement as in Caligula, for instance. There are a number ofpoints of interest: (a) there is a slight reduction of inflection in VS (seeTables 4.5 and 4.6 below) and (b) I is optional, as shown in (124) to (150),especially when CP is present.

First, the evidence for Verb movement to I and to C is as follows.Shakespeare has V-to-C, as in (111), uses periphrasticdo, as in (112) and(113), and has a special modal category, indicating that I is present. Thisstage is interesting in that the main verb moves to C, as in (111), to I, as in(114), and does not move in (115), which shows the FCs are not alwayspresent, or verb-movement to these categories is optional:

(111) 1 Henry IV, I, ii, 87What say’st thou to a Hare?

(112) Idem, II, i, 47Sirra Carrier, what timedo you mean to come to London?

(113) Idem, I, iii, 132if I do not ioyne with him.

(114) Idem, I, iii, 272I speakenot this in estimation.

(115) 2 Henry IV, IV, i, 113Westmoreland: Yet for your part, it notappearsto me.

As to (a), the loss of inflection, as seen above, the-th ending is morecommon with ‘do’ than with ‘have’ in either order:he does/do’s/doe’soccurs41 times;he doth53 times;does/do’s/doe’s he22 times; anddoth he22times. He has/ha’sis found 77 times;he hath286 times;has/ha’s he11times; andhath he41 times. In a table, this looks as follows:


Table 4.6.SV and VS in relation to-th and-s

doth does total hath has total

he VV heTotal

53 (=56%)22 (=50%)75 (=54%)

412263

094044138

286 (=79%)041 (=79%)327 (=79%)

771188

363052415

From Table 4.6, it appears that only in the case ofdoesis there a slightlylarger (but not statistically significant) ratio of VS; so there is less agreementwhen the verb moves. Also evident from the table is thathath is more robustthandoth.

Examining VS against SV, as in Table 4.6, may be too crude. I willtherefore look at verbal inflection after awh-element, i.e. when the verb isin C, as in (116):

(116) Anthony & Cleopater IV, ii, 25What doeshe meane?

Verbs with second person pronouns afterwh-elements, as in (117), alldisplay the ‘appropriate’ endings (checking all instances ofwhat followed bya verb andthou). Hence, V-to-C does not result in different second personinflections, as in Dutch, for instance (see 4.1 above):

(117) 1 Henry IV, II, iv, 580What hast thou found?

Instances of-th and -s third person inflection afterwhat are given in (116)above and in (118) and (119):

(118) Merry Wives, II, i, 70What doth he thinke of vs?

(119) Othello, IV, ii, 35What doth your speech import?

As will be seen in Tables 4.7 and 4.8, there is a difference between theauxiliariesdo andhave. In the case ofdo, the (reduced) formdoesoccursmore in moved positions, but in the case ofhave, there is no difference.

As to V-to-I movement, Lightfoot (1995) presents an interesting argu-ment, based on Visser’s (1963–1973: 1532ff.) constructionHe not spoke, asin (115) above, that provides evidence for the lack of V-to-I movement. I


will first examine verb inflection in cases where V-to-I does take place. Theclearest of these are cases in which the verb moves before the negative, asin (120) to (122):

(120) 2 Henry IV, II, i, 100And didst not thou … desire me to …

(121) Anthony & Cleopater, IV, 5, 12Sir, his Chests and Treasure hehasnot with him.

(122) Henry V, V, ii, 150because hehath not the gift to wooe in …

The numbers fordoth not, does/do’s/doe’s not, hath not, andhas/ha’s notare43, 20, 77, and 10 respectively, showing thathathanddothoccur more often:

Table 4.7.V-to-C and V-to-I and inflection withdo

doth does total

wh VV notall

066 (=59%)043 (=68%)841 (=74%)

046 (=41%)020 (=32%)300 (=26%)

011200631141

Table 4.8.V-to-C and V-to-I and inflection withhave

hath has total

wh VV notall

0100 (=84%)0077 (=88%)1862 (=82%)

019 (=16%)010 (=12%)418 (=18%)

011900872280

The numbers forhath, has, doth, anddoesare given in Tables 4.7 and 4.8. Inthe case ofdo, verbs in C (afterwh) show a higher percentage of-s than verbsin I (beforenot). Verbs in I, however, show more-s than verbs in general.In the case ofhave, position makes no difference. The difference is onlystatistically significant when comparing verbs in C to verbs in general.

Thus, a-th inflection is less common in cases of verb-movement ofdo.A possible explanation for this is suggested in Section 4.4. In the remainderof this section, I show that the same is true for covert movement to C as insentences when the verb does not move at all (overtly that is) but its featuresare checked in C.


The construction in (115), i.e. where V does not (overtly) move to I,occurs in early-sixteenth-century English but is in fact quite rare in Shake-speare. I show that the construction occurs when a CP is involved.13

Hence, when a CP is present, I does not trigger overt verb-movement and thefeatures of the verb are checked (covertly) in C. Visser cites 2 instances,(115) above and (123) below, ofnot preceding a main verb in2 Henry IV,but examining the First Folio Edition, I find that Visser’s examples are theonly 2 in that play out of 230 occurrences ofnot. They are spoken by thesame character and appear very close together. There are 23 instances ofdo,52 of a main verb precedingnot and the remainder are instances of anauxiliary precedingnot:

(123) 2 Henry IV, IV, i, 104Westmoreland: Or if it were, it notbelongsto you.

In all, Visser lists 22 instances from Shakespeare and these are representativebut not complete. Some of Visser’s instances can be instances of ellipses, as(124). I leave those out. In the 8120 instances ofnot in the First Folio, thereare 28 instances of a lack of V-to-I as indicated bynot. Apart from (115)and (123), these are listed from (125) to (150). I have indicated who the‘speakers’ are to show it is not an idiosyncracy of a particular character, asis the case in2 Henry IV. The construction is found in 18 of the plays, inboth early and late ones:

(124) Anthony & Cleopater, II, i, 3Menecrates: Know worthyPompey, that what they do delay, they notdeny.14

13. Roberts (1993: 239) writes that “inflected main verbs preceded clausalnot until the ENEperiod”, but that “there are a few examples of […]not-inflected V in the 15th and 16thcenturies, and into the early 17th century” (p. 252). His account of these examples is based onthe observation that “[i]t is striking that all the 15th-century occurrences of this order given inVisser […] have either subject gaps or pronominal subjects” (p. 304). These subjects, Robertsargues, could be clitics on C and Stylistic Fronting ofnotwould then result in the constructionat hand. In this way, Roberts can continue to assume that the verb moves to I. As can be seenfrom the sentences below, in Shakespeare, not all instances wherenot precedes the finite verbinvolve pronominal subjects (cf. e.g. (136), (137), (140), and (145) do not). Hence, Roberts’account does not explain all the constructions in Shakespeare.

14. Blake (1988: 92) does not study the construction and says, e.g. regarding this sentence, “[i]twould not be wise to probe this example for any deeper reason in the ordering of the negative”.


(125) 3 Henry VI, II, viRichard: Who notcontentedthat he lopp’d the Branch

(126) Anthony & Cleopater, II, ii, 35Caesar: when to sound your nameIt not concernedme

(127) Idem, II, i, 49Pompey: The petty difference, we yet notknow.

(128) Idem, III, iv, 9Anthony: When the best hint was given him: he nottook’t.

(129) Idem, III, xiv, 29Cleopatra: Notknowme yet?

(130) All’s Well, III, vii, 44Hellen: Where both notsinne.

(131) Coriolanus, I, vi, 60Martius: And that you notdelay the present.

(132) Cymbeline, I, vi, 153Imogen: Who he notrespectsat all.

(133) Idem, II, iii, 80Clotten: for I yet notvnderstandthe case my selfe.

(134) Idem, III, iii, 40Guiderius: A Prison, or a Debtor, that notdaresTo stride a limit.

(135) Hamlet, III, ii, 217King: For who notneeds, shall neuer lacke a Frend.

(136) John IV, iii, 96Hubert: whose tongue … not truelyspeakes.

(137) Lear IV, ii, 2Gonerill: I meruell our mild husband Notmetvs on the way.

(138) Macbeth, I, vii, 76Lady: What notput vpon His spungie Officers?

(139) Measure, II, i, 18Angelo: I notdeny.

(140) Much Ado, V, i, 22Leonato: which they themselues notfeele.


(141) Othello, III, iii, 161Iago: that, which notenricheshim.

(142) Timon, IV, iii, 58Timon: and more then that I know thee I notdesireto know.

(143) Richard III, I, ii, 250Richard: whose All notequalsEdwards moytie.

(144) Tempest, II, i, 121Francisco: As stooping to releeue him: I notdoubt.

(145) Idem, V, i, 50Prospero: Whereof the ewe notbites.

(146) Idem, V, i, 101Alonso: Where thou bee’st … I not know.

(147) Idem, V, i, 314Sebastian: with such discourse, as I notdoubt, shall make itGoe quicke away.

(148) Troilus, III, iii, 184Vlisses: what notstirs.

(149) Winter’s Tale, IV, iii, 418Florizell: for some other reasons, … I not acquaintMy father of this businesse.

(150) Idem, IV, iii, 474Florizell: I not purposeit: I thinke.

If not indicates the left boundary of the VP or if it is the Head or Specifierof a NegP, the verb in the above sentences does not move to I or C. What isstriking about these is that in most sentences, the SpecCP or C is occupiedby awh-element as in (125), (130), (132), (135), (136), (138), (140), (141),(143), (145), and (148). In (131), (133), (134), (137), and (147), there is acomplementizer present. In the other cases, there is a topic as in (115), (123),(126), (127), (128), (146), and (149), or other pre-IP element, as in (142) (cf.Chomsky 1977: 110; Lasnik & Saito 1992: 78 for involving a CP in casessuch as these). So, if CP is activated, IP is not and hence V-to-I does nottake place. There are 4 cases that require more careful consideration: (129),(139), (144), and (150). One of these, (129), is a question and a CP ispresent for the question operator. In (144),as could be the complementizerintroducing I not doubtand in (150) athat has been left out and elements


moved, as fromI thinke that I not purpose it. The one sentence where a CPis not involved is (139).

Since there are no instances ofdoth/doesand hath/hasor of secondperson verbs in these sentences, there is no evidence as to whether agree-ment is ‘regular’ in negative constructions such as these. There are 8instances of-s on main verbs, as in (145), but these are expected since the-th is no longer common. It is, however, interesting that sentences such as(151) where the verb does move to I acrossnot have a-th:

(151) Romeo & Juliet, II, i, 15Mercutio: hehearethnot, hestirreth not, hemouethnot.

Since there are only 8 instances of clear verbal inflection in the 28 construc-tions under examination, I cannot make a strong argument linking lack ofV-to-I to the occurrence of-s, but the limited data are consistent with thatclaim. In at least these 8 sentences, I assume that the agreement features arechecked through (covert) attraction to C, as in Chomsky 1995. Checking inC, as argued above, results in a different agreement.

This section is an excursion into the relationship between verb-movementand inflection. It shows that, in many texts, both overt movement to C, as in(119), and covert movement, as in (125), result in less agreement. This maybe due to the fact that C is not a proper position to check agreement, assuggested in 4.4. I assume that lack of agreement is typical of checking inFCs, quite opposite to Bobaljik & Jonas, as outlined in 4.1.

4.6 Conclusion

Chapter 4 has two aims. First, it shows that in Old English agreement is lostwith first and second person but not with third. I argue that this happensbecause the features on the third person verb are specified, whereas the oneson first and second person verbs are underspecified. This is tied to what Iargue in the previous chapters: first and second person continue to functionreflexively since they are not fully referential; and pro-drop involves mainlythird person but less first and second person since the features of thirdperson are more specified.

Second, the data in this chapter show that there is no relationshipbetween overt movement and overt verbal morphology in Old and Early


Middle English, but that, on the contrary, verb-movement to C often resultsin reduced inflection. I point out a possible analysis for this loss of agree-ment in 4.4 having to do withφ-features checking in C. The loss of agree-ment ultimately leads to Uninterpretablity.

Even though Old English has independent tense and agreement morphol-ogy, there is no evidence (from modals anddo) that T and AgrS are present.Rather than the presence of agreement, I argue it is structural evidence, suchas in (113), that triggers the presence of FCs. The post-1400 stages Iexamine show little relation between overt agreement and overt movement;for example, in Chaucer, the plural-n endings are disappearing but nopattern can be found. However, the later First Folio (1623) of Shakespeare’sworks shows that even around 1600, V-to-C movement still occurs and thatthird person-s agreement can be linked to this V-to-C movement.

C 5

The loss of inherent case

In Chapter 1, I argue that simple pronouns in Old English can be usedreflexively because they have inherent,θ-related Case. In this chapter, Iprovide evidence that Old English indeed has inherent Case. Assuming that,in a Minimalist framework, inherent Case features are Interpretable, they neednot be checked in an FC, i.e. AgrO, and cannot be lost under passive. Withoutgoing into much detail about it, I assume that the change to structural Caseinvolves the activization of AgrO prompted by the morphological changes.

As mentioned before, inherent Case is first lost with first and secondperson. I will show that too in this chapter. First and second person pro-nouns, however, continue to be used reflexively due to the nature of theirperson features (as argued in 2.5, and Chapters 3 and 4).

In the first section (5.1), I discuss the notion of inherent Case, as inChomsky (1986a), and provide the pronominal paradigm for Old English. Ishow that dative objects are marked differently from accusative ones in avariety of texts. Then (in 5.2), I show that verbs make use of the differencebetween dative, accusative, and genitive in that they assign inherent or lexicalCase, i.e. Case dependent on the thematic structure of the verb. I also arguethat there is no transformational passive or pseudo passive, because Case isinherent. In 5.3, I discuss the loss of inherent Case in a number of EarlyMiddle English texts and connect this with what was argued for in Chapter 1.

5.1 Inherent case in Old English

In this section, I supply some background on the notion of inherent Case andshow that Old English has rich Case morphology for accusative, genitive anddative (pro)nouns (I predominantly examine pronouns). In a later section, I


show that the Case is indeed inherent since it is, for instance, not absorbedin passive constructions.

5.1.1 Background on inherent case

As mentioned in the introductory chapter, in Chomsky (1986a: 193), thefollowing definition appears: “[w]e distinguish the ‘structural Cases’ objec-tive and nominative, assigned in terms of S-structure position, from the‘inherent Cases’ assigned at D-structure… Inherent Case is associated with[θ]-marking, while structural Case is not”. Inherent Case has been assumedin languages where the verb (and/or preposition) assigns a Case dependingon the θ-role. For instance, in Germanhelfen ‘help’, as in (1), assigns adative to its object that has a Goalθ-role (cf. Haider 1985, who uses theterm ‘lexical Case’). In these cases, passivization results in (2), not in (3).Thus, the dative Case is retained:

(1) Sie hilft ihmshe- helps him-

‘She helps him.’

(2) Ihm wurde geholfenhim- was helped‘He was helped.’

(3) *Er wurde geholfenhe- was helped

Unlike Old English, as I argue in 5.2, German assigns structural accusativeto the object in (4). The evidence is that when the object ceases to be in theright structural configuration to get accusative and has moved to a positionwhere structural nominative is assigned, it bears nominative Case, as shownin (5) and (6):

(4) Ich seheihnI- see him-

‘I see him.’

(5) Er wurde gesehenhe- was seen

(6) *Ihn wurde gesehenhim- was seen

THE LOSS OF INHERENT CASE 199

Thus, the literature generally supposes that inherent Case occurs if there aredifferent morphological Cases; if these areθ-related, as in (1); and if theyare retained under movement, as in (2). In 5.1.2 and 5.2, using these criteria,I show Old English has inherent Case. In the introductory chapter, I translatethe inherent Case of the 1980s into Minimalist terminology. I assume thatinherent Case is stillθ-related and that it is not checked overtly. Instead, itis Interpretable.

5.1.2 Accusative versus Dative forms: a person split

In Table 5.1, repeated from the introductory chapter, the pronominal para-digm of Old English is given in order to show the diversity typical ofinherent Case. I ignore spelling/pronunciation differences:

Table 5.1.Old English pronouns

Singular Dual Plural

First

icminmemec

witunceruncuncet

weureususic

Second

þuþinþeþec

gitincerincincit

geeowereoweowic

Third (M/F/N)

he/heo/hithis/hire/hishim/hire/himhine/heo/hit

––––

hihirahimhi

Instances of some of these inBeowulfare given in the introductory chapteras well. In Forchheimer’s (1953) terms, Old English would be an 8-personsystem, as opposed to Modern English which is a 5-person system. InModern English, the dual is not present and the plural distinction is absentfor the second person. In Old English, the Case marking on NPs is quiteextensive as well, as Table 5.2 shows for 2 kinds of nouns,talu ‘tale’, afeminine noun, andcyning ‘king’, a masculine noun. I will not undertake asystematic study of nouns, however:


Table 5.2.Old English noun inflections

Singular Plural

Feminine N

seo taluþære taleþære taleþa tale

þa talaþara talaþæm talumþa tala

Masculine N

se cyningþæs cyningesþæm cyningeþone cyning

þa cyningasþara cyningaþæm cyningumþa cyningas

In Beowulf, the first and second person singular specially markedaccusative formsmec and þec occur somewhat frequently. There are 55instances ofmeand 16 ofmec(hence, 23% of the total number of accusativeand dative pronouns is the specially marked accusative, see Table 5.3below); and 44 instances ofþeand 8 ofþec (=15%). However, these formsare restricted in that they occur with a very limited set of verbs: for instance,mecoccurs withnyman ‘take’ 6 times. Instances of the specially markedthird person are more frequent. There are 200 instances ofhim (1 of hym),of which 167 are masculine singular dative (cf. Klaeber’s glossary), and 73of hine/hyne(=30%) which are masculine singular accusative. First andsecond person plural are disappearing: there are 4 accusative first personplurals (against 13 dative ones) and 2 second person accusatives (against 10datives). Therefore, first and second person accusative forms are disappearing(putting the numbers of first and second together and comparing them withthird, the difference is statistically relevant), with the second person beingless frequent than the first.

In Junius, the first person specially marked accusative is the earliest todisappear (unlike inBeowulfwhere the second person disappears first). InBessinger & Smith’s (1978)Concordance to Anglo-Saxon Poetry, there are99 instances ofmein Genesis; none inExodus; 6 in Daniel; and 14 inChrist& Satan, making a total of 119 inJunius.1 There is only onemec, and itoccurs inGenesis, (=1% of the combined dative and accusative first personsingulars, as compared to 23% inBeowulf). The accusative second person

1. My own Concordance made by using TACT shows a number of 122.


þec is more frequent since 26 instances occur, 1 inGenesis, 23 in Daniel,and 2 inChrist & Satan(as far as the dativeþe is concerned, it is sometimeshard to distinguish between demonstrative, relative, and personal pronoun butthese are numerous as expected). The numbers for singularhim and hine,using my own Concordance, are 200 and 70 respectively (=26%).2 Theplurals are very rare: 6 first person and no second person plurals. Thus, inJunius, as inBeowulf, third person singulars display accusative marking toa greater extent than second and first persons. In theExeter Book, thesituation is reversed since there are more instances of the specially markedfirst person accusativemec than there are of the third personhine: 230singularhim,3 110 hine/hyne, 250me, and 161mec. However, the distribu-tion of mec is very uneven throughout the manuscript. So, in terms ofstrength of features, the texts differ where first and second person areconcerned, but the accusative forms of both first and second person seem tobe in the process of disappearing.

In the northern (Mercian) late-ninth-centuryVespasian Psalter, thespecial accusative forms are very much alive.4 This is reflected in their wideuse, e.g. as reflexives, mentioned in Chapter 1. There are 318 instances ofthe dativeme, 339 of the accusativemec, roughly 100 of the dative singularhim,5 and 155 of accusativehine. The Vespasian Psalteris the only textwith a common first plural accusative (namely 68usics against 4 secondperson pluraleowics):

2. Sincehim can be both singular masculine and neuter as well as plural, the number ofsingular masculine datives is an estimate, based on comparing a translation ofJunius(BerkeleyDigital Library Sunsite) with the original.

3. For Christ and Guthlac, the number of singular masculine dativehims is 115 and thenumber ofhine/hyne54. Since 54 is about half of the total 110, I have multiplied 115 by 2, inorder to estimate the total number of masculine singular datives.

4. The use is said to differ between the early and later parts (Zeuner 1882: 140), with moreforms of the special accusative in the later parts. Looking at the distribution ofhine, as madeby TACT, this is not the case, however.

5. There are 178 instances ofhim and slightly fewer than half of these are plural. I used theLatin original to decide whether to assign singular or plural, e.g. singulareoor ei against pluraleos, etc.


(7) VP, 3.1 (Kuhn edition)dryht hwet gemonigfaldade sindun ða ðe swencaðmec /lord who many are that that oppress me monge arisað wiðme.many rise with me

(8) VP, 3.5ne ondredu ic ðusend folces ymsellendesmenot fear I thousand people surrounding me

It is interesting that singularhim corresponds to the singular dative in theLatin but that plural dativehim is often used to translate a Latin accusative(eos), as in (9), in place of the expected accusativehie. The Latin singularaccusative is always ‘correctly’ rendered by the accusativehine. This meansthat the scribe’s understanding of the plural special forms is weaker:

(9) VP, 2.5spriceð tohim in eorre hisloquetur adeos in ira suaspeaks to them in ire his‘he speaks to them in his anger.’

In this text, the second person singular special accusative is quite rarecompared to datives.6 In the Mercian of a century later, i.e. inRushworth(Matthew), there are 86 instances ofme but only 30 ofmec (hence, thespecial accusatives are 26% of the total of dative and accusatives); 88 ofðebut only 17 of ðec (=16%); 211 instances of singularhim (the plural isusuallyheom) but only 114 ofhine (=35%). This is a marked reduction ofthe special accusative form in 100 years, especially with second person. AsI will explain below, a number of the Latin accusatives (both singular andplural) are rendered ashim.

The comparable Northumbrian version of Matthew represented in theLindisfarne Gospelhas the following distribution: 45me, 46mec; 67 ðe, 41ðec; 2227 singular dative masculinehim, and 163hine. It seems that third

6. As inLindisfarneandRushworth, the datives were arrived at by examining the Latinteandtibi forms.

7. I examined the first 100 instances ofhimand the distribution was 69 singular and 31 plural,which percentage I assume for all of Matthew.


person is ‘weaker’ than first, but not than second. Often, the Latin accusativesingular eum is glossed ashim, evidence of the loss ofhine. The pluralaccusativeeosis also translated byhim, as in (10):

(10) Lindisfarne, Matthew, 9.18sprecende tohim & ðæmloquente ad eos‘speaking to (him and) them.’

The difference betweenRushworthandLindisfarneas to wherehine is lostis that in the former, complements to verbs change tohim, as between (11)and (12), whereas in the latter it is the complements to prepositions that losethe specially Case marked objects first, as in (13) and (14):

(11) Rushworth, 4.25& him fylgendun monige mængu of galilea‘and many Galileans followed him.’

(12) Lindisfarne, idem& gefylgdonhine ðreate monige of galilea

(13) Rushworth, Matthew 5.25on wæge midhine‘on the road with him.’

(14) Lindisfarne, idemin uoeg midhim

Also in Lindisfarne, many times a Latin accusativeeumis translated byhine& him, as in (15), as if the person making the gloss could not decide:

(15) Lindisfarne, 9.10aras fylgende wæshine & him‘he arose and was following him.’

The later West Saxon version of Matthew has: 118 instances ofme, noinstances ofmec (or þec), 215 instances of singularhim/hym, and 147instances ofhine/hyne. Thus, the loss of the special accusative for first andsecond person is well established by Late Old English, at least in WestSaxon. In the West Saxon of King Alfred’s and Ælfric’s works, the first (andsecond) person accusative form is extinct but not the third person one. InAlfred’s Pastoral Care(Hatton MS),him occurs 736 times (both singular


and plural), whereashine occurs 357 times. InOrosius, there are very fewinstances ofhine, only 30, whereas there are 839 instances of (singular andplural)him/hym. Boethiushas 380 instances of (singular and plural)him/hym/heomand 234 ofhine/hyne. I have not separated the singular from the pluralinstances ofhim in Alfred, however. Reading part of thePastoral Care, bothsingular and plural accusative are very ‘alive’, seemingly as much as thedative form. In the also West SaxonLives of Saintsby Ælfric, singular andplural him/hymoccur 1043 times,hine/hyne564 times, andme 286. Eble(1970: 18) shows that in Ælfric’s first series ofHomilies, the dative form ofthe noun occurs most frequently, but the accusative occurs quite often (7364dative forms against 4192 accusative ones, i.e. 36% of all accusative anddative forms are accusative).

Thus, by Late Old English, the accusative special forms for first andsecond person pronouns are extinct. The third person is being lost in northerntexts such asLindisfarneand Rushworth, but not in West Saxon. This issummarized in Table 5.3. The form for the second person dative singular isidentical with many demonstratives and relatives and is therefore extremelyfrequent. For this reason, I have not calculated the numbers of datives inExeterand the West Saxon version of Matthew (this omission is indicated by‘#’). Neither have I tallied up the figures for Alfred or Ælfric, assuming thatthey are similar to the ones in the West Saxon version of Matthew. Sinceplural first and second person accusatives disappear quite early, as mentionedabove, I have only listed singulars in Table 5.3. The percentages indicate theaccusative out of the total of accusative and dative forms:

Table 5.3.Dative versus accusative case in singular Old English pronouns

me/mec þe/þec him/hine

BeowulfExeterJuniusLin 1VPRush 1WS Matth

055/16250/161119/1045/46318/339086/30118/0

(=23%)(=39%)(=1%)(=51%)(=52%)(=26%)(=0%)

044/800#/58140/26067/41241/68088/1700#/0

(=15%)

(=16%)(=38%)(=22%)(=16%)(=0%)

167/73230/110200/70222/163096/155211/114215/147

(=30%)(=32%)(=26%)(=42%)(=62%)(=35%)(=40%)


5.2 Use of inherent Case

In the previous section, I show that the morphology of accusative and dativeCase is changing. In this section, I provide evidence that the use of Case inOld and Early Middle English is different as well from that in ModernEnglish. Most scholars have argued that Old English had some kind ofinherent Case (e.g. cf. oblique Case in van Kemenade 1987: chap. 3), but Iargue that even accusative objects have oblique Case. To avoid repetition, Imainly examineBeowulf.

The first piece of evidence that accusative, dative, and genitive areinherent is that they are related to theθ-role of a verb as in Chomsky(1986a: 193). Thus, in (16) to (19), objects such asþæm feonde, him, andsæmannumare dative because verbs such asætwendan‘escape’,forscrifan‘proscribe’, andonsacan‘strive against’ assign Goalθ-roles (cf. Visser 1963;Mitchell 1985 for lists):

(16) Beo 143se þæm feonde ætwandwho- the- enemy- escaped‘he who had escaped the enemy.’ (Visser 284)

(17) Beo 106siþðanhim scyppend forscrifen hæfdesince him creator banned had‘since the creator had banned him.’ (Visser 292)

(18) Beo 2353ond æt guðe forgrapGrendeles mægumand at battle [he] seized Grendel- kinsmen-

‘and he crushed Grendel’s kinsmen to death in battle.’

(19) Beo 2954þæt hesæ-mannum onsacan mihtethat he sailors- strive-against might‘that he might strive against the sailors.’ (Visser 395)

The Case to the object of a preposition is determined by the preposition. Forinstance, the object toon has accusative, butbutan ‘outside’ andbeneoþan‘beneath’ assign dative andandlanges‘along’ andutan ‘outside of’ assigngenitive (the latter type of Case is rare). Adjectives assign either dative or


genitive, again depending on theθ-marking. For instance,uncyþig‘ignorantof’ has a genitive object andgecwemlic‘pleasing to’ has a dative one.

A second piece of evidence that inherent Case is present comes from theabsence of Accusative-with-Infinitive (hence ACI) constructions8 andpassives. ACIs are constructions whereθ-marking is not connected to Case.Thus, a ‘subject’ can get accusative Case from a verb not related to it inθ-marking. ACI constructions occur much less frequently in Old English thanthey do in Modern English, and when they do appear, it is with differentverbs. As has often been noticed, e.g. Callaway (1913) and Zeitlin (1908),ACI constructions in Old English occur with verbs of command (e.g.hatan),permission, sense perception, and causation and it might be possible toanalyze such sentences differently e.g. as double object constructions,similar to constructions withpersuadein Modern English. Van Kemenade(1987) argues that ACIs are present in Old English and that their presenceindicates that objective Case is structural. Her example of an ACI construc-tion is the causative in (20):

(20) PC, 106, 8Se ealdormon sceal lætanhiene selfne gelicne his hieremonnum‘The ruler shall let himself resemble his subjects.’

Van Kemenade (1987: 70) argues thathiene is subject in the embeddedclause but receives accusative Case. Thus, Case andθ-role are not linked andthe Case must be structural, connected to the position rather than to theθ-role. The problem with examples such as these is that, as mentioned above,hienecould very well be one of the objects oflætan, the other object being[PRO gelicne his hieremonnum]. If true, (20) is not an example of an ACI.Evidence for such a double object analysis is that the infinitive can bereplaced by a finite clause, as in (21), leaving the other objectuspresent:

(21) PC, 451, 8he us het ðæt we hit beforan monnum dydenhe us commanded that we it in front of men did‘He commanded us to do it in the presence of men.’(Visser 834)

8. The reason for this is also connected to the absence of an IP in Old English, cf. vanGelderen (1993).


Hatan ‘command’ in (21) can be argued not to have an ACI and hence,presents no evidence for the existence of structural Case.Let can be regardedthe same way even though I have not found an instance oflet with a NP-CPcomplement in Visser. Los (2000: 184ff.) presents a good argument thatverbs such ashatanand lætanhave ACI complements. She compares theseverbs to ‘real’ double object verbs such as ‘persuade’ and argues that theaccusative object is more often animate with real ditransitives than withhatan and lætan. This indicates the accusative object ofhatan is really asubject of the infinitive, not the object of the main verb. However, sinceeven real ditransitives have some inanimate accusatives, and since ‘real’ ACIconstructions, withbelieveandwant, start to appear in the late 14th century,e.g. in Wyclif and Chaucer, I will assume sentences such as (20) do notshow that structural Case occurs. In an Early Middle English text such asLayamon, ACIs to verbs such as ‘believe’ and ‘want’ do not yet occur (cf.Funke 1907: 25–6). Thus, the fact that ACI constructions are absent isaccounted for if Case is not (yet) structural but thematic.

Next, I examine passives in Old English. If accusative Case is inherent,one expects the subject of the passive to retain its Case; if it is structural,one expects it to have nominative Case. I argue that they are neither, but thatthe subject of the ‘passive’ is an Experiencer and is assigned inherent Case.

Passives in Modern English have been argued to be of two types (cf. e.g.Wasow 1977): either they are adjectival and select an externalθ-role whichchecks or is assigned nominative Case or they are verbal (also called trans-formational) and select a Theme, which cannot check or be assigned accusa-tive since the participle ‘absorbs’ this Case. The Theme therefore moves toa position where it checks (structural) nominative Case (cf. Williams 1981).In Old English, I will argue, passives are different for two reasons. First,unlike in Modern English, they occur where the ‘Theme’ bears an objectCase, as in (22) to (29) (Note that it is sometimes hard to determine if theparticiple is and adjective or a verb). Second, the passives, as in (30) to (33),that appear to be the same as those in Modern English can in fact be arguednot to be derived from an active construction. I first list 8 ‘real’ passives:

(22) Beo 140ða him gebeacnod wæswhich him- indicated was‘when he was shown by means of a sign.’


(23) Beo 1192Him wæs ful borenhim was cup given‘He was given a cup.’

(24) Beo 1269þær him aglæca ætgræpe wearðthere him monster grabbed became‘here he was grabbed by the monster.’

(25) Beo 1330Wearð him on Heorote to handbananbecame him in Heorot to slayer‘He was slain in Heorot.’

(26) Beo 1356–7hwæþer him ænig wæs ær acenned / dyrna gastawhether him any was before born bad spirit-

‘whether to him before this a bad [ghost] had been born.’

(27) Beo 2682Him þæt gifeðe ne wæs (þæt…)him that given not was ‘It wasn’t given to him that …’

(28) Beo 2696swa him gecynde wæsso him taught was‘as he was taught.’

(29) Beo 2983ða him gerymed wearð‘when they were allowed.’

The occurrence of this kind of passive construction could in principleindicate that inherent Case, and not structural objective Case, is assigned tothe object since the inherent Case is not dependent on the structural positionof an element, in this case the subject position, but on the thematic relation-ship. I argue instead that these constructions involve an Experiencer, and thatinherent Case is assigned to the NP bearing thisθ-role (in the same way asin the constructions discussed in the next chapter).

In examiningBeowulf, I find no evidence that accusativehine is everused ashim is in (22) to (29). This is not unique toBeowulf. Some people


have argued (I do not) that Case is structural in Old English and that theabsence ofhine in the construction above is caused by that. However, if thiswere the case, one would expect the Modern English passive constructionsand Old English lacks transformational passives (cf. Mustanoja 1960: 440;Lightfoot 1979, but cf. Lightfoot 1991: 115ff. for a different account).Instances where the ‘object’ has nominative Case can be argued to beadjectival (cf. also Campbell 1959: 293). Looking at the 284 instances ofhein Beowulf, I find 3 such instances (over half fewer than the 8 passives withhim as in (27)), listed as (30) to (32). A fourth instance must be disregardedas the parentheses in (33) indicate “conjecturally inserted letters” (Klaeber inhis note to the 1922 edition). The meaning also makes clear these are notregular passives. In (30), there is no Agent that ‘grows up’ thehe subjectand reading the text around (31), it becomes clear that the anger is notcaused by an external agent but by ‘himself’

(30) Beo 693þær he afeded wæsthere he grown-up was‘where he had grown up.’

(31) Beo 1539þa he gebolgen wæsthen he angered was‘then he became angry.’

(32) Beo 2692–3He geblodegod wearð / sawuldrioreHe bloodpoured became lifeblood-

‘He became stained with blood.’

(33) Beo 723ða (he ge)bolgen wæsthen(he angred was‘then he was angry.’

Not being able to apply tests, such as whether the past participle appearsafter raising verbs and whether it can have anun- prefix (cf. Wasow 1977),to native speakers of Old English makes it hard to decide. Even thoughungebolgen‘unangered’ orunafededare not in Bosworth & Toller (1898) orin Clark Hall (1894 [1960]), pages of participles are preceded by-un, such


as unareht ‘undiscussed’,unawriten ‘unwritten’, and unboht ‘unbought’.Another argument in favor of the passive being lexical when it has anominative subject (but see Lightfoot 1979 for more) is the following: inmodern English, where the passive participle is sometimes adjectival andsometimes verbal, one of the tests to distinguish between the two is whetheror not aby-phrase can be added. Thus,the door is closedis ambiguous, butthe door is closed by Johnis not. In Old English, however, this test is not soclear-cut. Visser (2176ff.) mentions different ways of indicating the agentor instrument: through Case and through various prepositions (among, at,between, by, for, fram, mid, of, on, to, through, andwith), indicating the‘agent’ is much more an instrument than an active participant (see alsoMitchell 1985: 334ff.). This use continues into Early Middle and MiddleEnglish, as (34) to (36) with instrumentals show:

(34) Katerine 1514–5’t swa þe cnotte is icnutbituhhen unc tweien‘and so the knot is knit between us two.’

(35) HM (Titus) 19, 177hit is iwriten þusþurh þe prophete‘It is written thus by the prophet.’ (Visser 2187; same in Bodley)

(36) Chaucer, Wife of Bath’s Prologue 661Ne I wolde natof hym corrected be‘I did not want to be corrected by him.’ (Visser 2184)

I have not distinguished between passives formed withbeon ‘be’ and thosewith wearþan ‘become’. In languages such as Dutch and German, thecounterpart to the latter is more ‘dynamic’ or unambiguously formed by atransformational passive. This is not so clear for Old English, as (32) aboveshows, and as Visser (p. 2091) argues based on work by Frary (1929). Forinstance, in two versions of the same work, the ‘be’ and ‘become’ are oftenvariants, but see Mitchell (1985: 326).

Thus, I argue that there is no transformational passive at all inBeowulfand that the dative subjects in (22) to (29) are Experiencers very much as inthe impersonal construction (discussed further in Chapter 6). The dative Caseis linked to theθ-role. All objects are therefore assigned an inherent Case. Inlater texts, once first and second person lose inherent Case, one expects theintroduction of transformational passives (see 5.3).


In conclusion, I show that Old English morphological Case distinguishesbetween genitive, dative and accusative, that Case isθ-related, and that thisθ-related Case does not disappear with movement. In short, the grammar ofOld English uses inherent Case marking, i.e. Case is Interpretable. Ifpronouns are inherently Case marked, it makes sense that they functionreflexively, as I argue in Chapter 1.

5.3 The loss of inherent Case

In Late Old English, inherent Case starts to be gradually lost (as is knownfrom e.g. van Kemenade 1987; Allen 1995). In this section, I discuss thechanges that take place in Early Middle English. I start with a table and adescription of the situation in the texts examined in Chapter 2.

5.3.1 The loss of morphological Case

The situation with first and second person pronouns is relatively uncompli-cated. Mossé (1962: 84ff.) lists the variants given in Table 5.4. The situationwith third person is very complex since the feminine ‘she’ is being introducedand so is the plural ‘they’. The variants are numerous (even in the same text),very often ambiguous, and I will therefore not put these forms in a table:

Table 5.4.Middle English first and second person pronouns

Singular Plural

First

ich, ic, ik, I, ymin, mime

weur(e), our(e)us, ous

Second

þu, thou, touþin, þi, thyþe, thee, te

Še, yeŠur(e), your(e), oureeu, ou,Šow, Šou, you

From Table 5.4, it appears that the special accusative form has disappearedaltogether (see also Swane 1904: 110). The texts I have examined confirmthis. This is not the case with all special third person forms. In at least twoof the Early Middle English texts discussed, in the twelfth-centuryHoly Rood


Tree (HRT) and in the thirteenth-century Layamon’sBrut, these formsappear. In the HRT, there are 37 instances ofhine and 93 ofhim. Thefeminine, neuter and plural third person forms have lost their specialaccusative form (cf. Napier 1894: lv), and the plural dative/accusative is nolonger the same as the singular, but it isheom. Some of thehine formsappear in unusual positions; twice they look like ethical datives withbiddan‘ask’, as in (37) and (38), and once, they occur in a typically dative environ-ment, namely as indirect object toaxian ‘ask’, as in (39).9 This may be anindication of the loss of inherent Case with certain verbs:

(37) HRT, 4.7–8oþ þt hehine to his drihtineŠebede‘Until he had prayed to his lord.’

(38) HRT, 10.5–6Sona swa dauid ðæt ihyrde … hine to his drihtine bead & ðus cwæð‘As soon as David heard that … and to his lord prayed and thus said.’

(39) HRT, 34.13–4Ða axode heohine hwæðer heo …‘then she asked him whether she …’

In Layamon, the distinctions remain, even though between the Caligula andthe Otho version,hineandheobecome much less frequent. For instance, theCaligula version still hasheoandhine for the accusative, as in (40) to (46),whereas Otho hashire andhim, as in (41) to (47). Allen (1995: 199) findsthat in Caligula “[w]hilehim is invading the traditional domain ofhine, …,[there are] only 2 examples in whichhine is used wherehim would behistorically correct”. This means the scribe/poet knows the grammaticaldistinction between accusative and dative, but that the morphologicaldistinctions are levelling:

(40) Caligula 1209 to Corineehine sende‘and sent him to Corineus.’

(41) Otho, idemand to Corineushim sende.

9. Acsian‘ask’ could already take accusative objects in Old English (cf. Mitchell 1985: 455).


(42) Caligula 2442 hine fæire on-feng‘and received him heartily.’

(43) Otho, idemand onderfenghim deore.

(44) Caligula 470þat heheo Šeue ure lauerdethat he her- give our lord-

‘that he give her to our lord.’

(45) Otho, idemþat heŠife hire vre louerd.

(46) Caligula 575þe Deouelheo luuede‘the devil loved her.’

(47) Otho, idemþe Deouelhire louede.

In Otho, hine, as in (48), andheo still occur as accusatives, though lessfrequently. That means structural Case is introduced gradually:

(48) Otho 184hi hine wolde makie duc‘they him wanted to make duke.’

The absolute numbers of singular third person masculines are 1230 instancesof him and 682 ofhine in Caligula and 914 and 430 respectively in Otho. Asmentioned in an earlier chapter, Otho is much more damaged. Thus, accusa-tive forms disappear in Otho. Looking at the percentage of accusatives todatives and accusatives combined, it is higher in Caligula (36% against 32%in Otho). This is quite high, even in comparison to the Old English textsdiscussed before.

In the early-thirteenth-century texts of the Katherine Group,hine andheo, and of coursemec, þec, usic, andeowic, have disappeared completely(see Logan 1973: 157). This is also the case in other early-thirteenth-centurytexts, not discussed here, such asOrmulum(cf. Funke 1907 for a comparisonof Ormulumand Layamon). Lehnert (1953: 109) puts it this way: “[e]s sei


vorweggenommen, daß der alte Dativ im ‘Orrmulum’ vollständig verloren-gegangen und in allen Fällen mit dem N. A. unter dem ‘common case’ wieim Ne. zusammengefallen ist” (also cf. Öfverberg 1924: 149 for the demiseof hine in Ormulum).

In the other Middle English texts discussed above, such as the four-teenth-century northernCursor Mundi, the fifteenth-centuryYork Plays, the15th century MidlandsGawain and southern Chaucer, no trace is left ofspecially marked pronouns. The generalized forms are the original dative (meandhim) for the pronouns and a loss of ending for the noun.

5.3.2 Other evidence for the loss of inherent Case

If inherent Case is lost, one expects all verbs to assign the same Case andthe Case not to be related to theθ-role. In this section, I discuss the demiseof verbs assigning dative and genitive. One also expects the transformationalpassive and the ACI construction to appear since Case is now structurallychecked/assigned. This is indeed true.

Visser (1963: 128–30) discusses the loss of the dative with verbs such asandswarian‘answer’, bugan ‘obey’, cidan ‘chide’, derian ‘injure’, helpan‘help’, hyrian ‘obey’, þancian‘thank’, and many others. In Old English, thedative Case occurs, as is shown in (49), but even then, it can already bereinforced with a preposition, as in (50). Both are from Ælfric. In Late OldEnglish and Early Middle English, the preposition is no longer necessaryand the object has neutral objective Case, as in (51) from the KatherineGroup. For instance, inHali Meidhad, there is no dative plural-um endingin either version:

(49) Lives Saints 7, 50Him bugað englas‘Him obeyed the angels.’

(50) Numbers 25, 2to þam hæþenŠŠilde buŠonto the- heathen-gods- (they) obeyed

(51) Ancrene Riwle, 198þet child þet ne buhð nouthis eldrethat child that not obeys not his elder(Visser, 128)


Thus, there is a move away from distinguishing the dative from the accusa-tive. Allen (1995: 182) comes to the same conclusion for the AB-dialect, i.e.the Katherine Group.

In Holy Rood Tree, the dative is often expressed on nouns (cf. Napier1894: liff.), as in (52), but as seen in the discussion ofhine above, some ofthe verbs that would typically assign dative in fact have an accusative object.Even though the 18 instances ofandswaranall have dative pronouns, thetypically dative endings,-e for masculine singular and-um for dative plural,only occur after prepositions assigning Goal and Sourceθ-roles not afterverbs. So, the dative can be expressed on the noun, but the verb ceases tosystematically select these. I come back to the prepositions below:

(52) HRT, 24.12 hit þam kinge cyddonand it the- king- made-known‘and made it known to the king.’

Layamon is one of the last to express the dative with verbs such asandswarian‘answer’, and again Caligula as in (53), is more old-fashionedthan Otho which uses a preposition, as in (54) (see also the differencebetween (44) and (45) above):

(53) Layamon, Caligula 7995Þa andswarede Merlin.þane kinge þe spac wið him‘Then answered Merlin the-/10 king- who spoke to him.’

(54) Otho, idemÞo answerede Merlynto þan king þat spak wiþ him.

This loss of the dative does not occur in Otho. Allen (1995: 196) says that inthis context “it appears that the old system of lexical assignment of case bysome verbs is retained”.

Mustanoja (1960: 87) says that “[i]n comparison with OE the number ofverbs governing the genitive in ME is small”. Allen (1995: 184) remarks thatin the 13th century, “[w]e now find only a few examples of genitive ob-jects”. The genitive is usually replaced by the accusative or by the use of the

10. Allen (1995: 198) suggests thatþane “must be regarded as a general object marker (oralternatively, as either dative or accusative)”.


prepositionof. According to Mustanoja, verbs that still use the genitive inMiddle English areabide ‘to wait for’, aswike ‘to cease’,bedeal, benim,bereaveall meaning ‘to rob’,can ‘to know’, forget ‘to forget’, help ‘to help’,wene ‘to believe’, wilnie ‘to desire’, andwonder ‘to wonder’. Mitchell(1985: 455–64) lists verbs and the Case of their objects in Old English andthe numbers are very different. I counted 224 verbs that have either a solegenitive object or a genitive object combined with other objects or a choicebetween differently case marked objects as compared to the 11 thatMustanoja mentions for Middle English. Bungenstab (1933) lists 10 types ofverbs complemented by a genitive in Old English. The total number of verbshe lists is 189. Some can only be complemented by a genitive (their numberis 65) while some choose between genitive and accusative and genitive anda preposition.

In Holy Rood Tree, these verbs do not appear, but inHali Meidhad, thereis one withbugan ‘bend, bow’ (in both versions), as in (55), but without agenitive. Allen (1995: 184) lists one, as in (56):

(55) HM (B), 6.42þet alle þinges buheðthat all things- bow‘for whom all things bow’ (in Titus,þingesis replaced bykinges).

(56) HM (B), 50.524bineomeð þe nahtes slepestake away thee night- sleep-

‘take away from you nights of sleep.’

As expected, the loss of the genitive is also occurring between Caligula andOtho. Compare (57) with (58) and (59) with (60). The Caligula examples aregiven in Mustanoja (1960: 88). Even though some of the Otho text isdamaged, the endings seem not to be and are clearly not genitive becausethey are not -esendings (which are bolded here):

(57) Caligula 1599he […] wilnedeþeos mæidenes‘he desired that maiden.’

(58) Idem Othohe […] wilnede …(t mayd)e.


(59) Caligula 14093–4þere læi þa uerde.þeos wederes abiden‘there lay the army waiting for good weather.’

(60) Otho, idemferde.weder a-…

As with the dative/accusative distinction, the genitive Case to objects ofverbs is not always replaced in Otho, as (61) shows:

(61) Otho, 13506forŠe … þarehis domes‘forgot there his judgement.’

So, as far as verbs assigning special Cases in Early Middle English, there arevery few.

A second piece of evidence for the introduction of structural Case comesfrom the fact that NP-movement is only introduced in Middle English. Theevidence Lightfoot (1979, but not 1991) presents that Old English passivesare lexical includes the lack of double object passives (cf. also van der Gaaf1929), the lack of long distance passives such asJohn was expected[t towin], and the lack of passives involving prepositional objects. Objects thathave inherent Case do not move since they do not need to. Assuming thatinherent Case is replaced with structural Case, NP-movement is introducedfor passives. Structural Case is internalized in passives. If the passive formsare listed in the lexicon separate from the active ones, Burzio’s Generaliza-tion will ensure that passives assign no accusative since they do notθ-marksubjects. Then, once structural Case is introduced, ‘objects’ must move to getnominative, as in (62), from the early-thirteenth-century and (63) from theearly-fourteenth centuryCursor Mundi. Regarding the passive nature of (62),Visser (p. 2087) says that “the dynamic action is obvious when there is a[n]… adjunct denoting particulars of the action”. Thus, passives start to appearin the 13th century:

(62) Ormulum, Dedication 192he wass i flumm Iorrdan Fullhtnedd‘He was baptized in the river Jordan.’(Visser 2087, but spelling as in Holt 1878)


(63) CM, Göttingen, 232–3þis ilke bok es translate / vnto engliss tung to rede.‘This same book has been translated into English to be read.’

ACI constructions also start to be introduced towards the end of the 14thcentury, which is not surprising if they involve structural Case. I will not gointo that here (cf. Callaway 1913; Zeitlin 1908; and more recently vanGelderen 1993: 59ff.).

Apart from verbs, prepositions assign inherent Case in Old English aswell. This continues into the Early Middle English texts that make thedistinction between accusative and dative, such asHoly Rood TreeandLayamon, but disappears later on. The datives in HRT appear with preposi-tions indicating Goal or Source as in (64) and (65). There are many of these:

(64) HRT, 22.33Ða comen heo eft to ðam kyngethen came they again to the- king-

(65) HRT, 14.29þa com him stæfnof hoefenumthen came him voice from heaven-

In Layamon’s Caligula, there are very fewhines that occur with preposi-tions, as in (66) and (67):

(66) Caligula 1977þet comemid hinethat came with him-

(67) Caligula 14469wið hine grið i-wurchenwith him- treaty make

In the Otho version, (66) and (67) havehim rather thanhine.As prepositions lose their special Case, prepositional passives, i.e. pseudo

passives, are expected. Denison (1993: 125ff; cf. also 1985: 190) counts 39Middle English examples of prepositional passives before 1400. The first one,listed as (68), however, is from the early-thirteenth-century Katherine Group,i.e. from a group of texts that do not make a distinction between dative andaccusative. Sentence (69) is from the early-fourteenth-centuryCursor Mundi,(70) from late-fourteenth-century Chaucer, and (71) from the 15th century(all from Denison), none of these are texts that make the distinction:


(68) Iuliene, 22.195þer was sorhe te seon hire leoflich lich faren so reowliche wið‘It is sorrow to see her dear body dealt so cruelly with.’

(69) CM, Cotton, 14216Bot nu þan am i after sendbut now then am I for sent(same in the other versions)

(70) Boece, 4.pr1.22How worthy it es to ben wondrid uppon

(71) PL, #88 (1460)but he sayd he was spoken to by on whiche he coude not remembre.

Mustanoja (1960: 441) says: “[t]he typeHe was laughed atalso begins toappear about 1300, but remains rare until the end of the 14th century”.

A word order change is occurring with constructions involving a ‘pre’-position. Even though the preferred order isprepositional, the change canperhaps also be seen as linked to the change in Case marking since againaround 1250, a lot of postpositions with clitic objects become prepositions.It can also be argued that clitics become pronominal and in this process fixthe head-initial word order. This can be seen from the fact that betweenCaligula and Otho, for instance, manyhire tos change toto hires and manyhim tos change toto hims as in:

(72) Caligula 1118 hehire to seide‘and said to her.’

(73) Otho, idemHe to hire seyde.

(74) Caligula 2451 him to seide‘and to him said.’

(75) Otho, idemand þusto him saide.

(76) Caligula 11727Lette weheom to gliden‘Let we hurl at them.’


(77) Otho, idemLete weto ham glide.

There are 9 instances ofæfter himin Caligula but only one ofhim æfterand2 instances ofunder himbut none ofhim under. There are also 94 instancesof mid himbut none ofhimmidand 17 instances ofwið himbut only 8 ofhimwið. These figures indicate that by 1250 the regular order is P NP, not NP P,and that the number of Cases that can be assigned by a preposition has beenreduced to one, except in cases such as (66) and (67) above. This points toprepositions mostly assigning structural Case in Early Middle English.

The sentences in which structural Case is introduced have a VO ordermore often than sentences in which Case is inherent. For instance, betweenthe two versions of Layamon’sBrut, a change in word order can on occasionbe seen. Caligula maintains the distinction between genitive, dative, andaccusative much more than Otho, but the word order in Caligula is more OVthan in Otho.11 Relevant examples are (42) and (43) above, repeated hereas (78) and (79), and (44) and (45) above, not repeated here:

(78) Caligula 2442 hine fæire on-feng‘and received him heartily.’

(79) Idem, Othoand onderfenghim deore.

Even though the relationship between the loss of inherent Case and theintroduction of VO order exists, I am here only describing that situation ingeneral terms, and am not providing a theoretical explanation.12

In conclusion, in Early Middle English, there is evidence that inherentCase is lost: (a) Verbs and prepositions cease to assign special (genitive anddative) Cases. In Layamon’s Caligula, there is some dative and genitive; in theKatherine Group, there is some genitive, as in (55), but no dative, as in (51);

11. This also holds for prepositional objects, as shown in (72) to (77) above. If one arguesthat in PPs there is a functional category responsible for structural Case, movement to the Specof this head could also be either overt or covert and one would therefore not expect a wordorder change.

12. This would lead too far astray. The introduction of structural Case involves AgrO, but de-pending on whether or not one adopts Kayne (1994), there are a number of possible structures.


in HRT, there is some dative, as in (52), with verbs and prepositions. (b)Passives and ACIs are introduced.13 (c) Prepositional passives start in theKatherine Group, as in (68). (d) There is a word order change, rigidifying therelationship between head and complement, an indication of structural Case.

5.4 Conclusion and further changes

I have shown that inherent Case is present in Old English but is lost by themiddle of the 13th century. The arguments involve the presence or absenceof special morphological Cases to differentiate between thematically relevantarguments, the occurrence of verbs and prepositions that select special Cases,the absence of constructions such as the transformational passive, the ACI,and prepositional passives. The texts differ somewhat in terms of all thesecharacteristics. For instance, texts of the Katherine Group have some geni-tives, no datives, and a prepositional passive, indicating that inherent Case isbeing lost. Other texts have different combinations of Case loss.

Three points of interest in the loss of Case are: (a) except for theneuter singular form, the accusative form is lost rather than the dative,14 (b)first and second person are lost before third (and, as will be argued in thenext chapter, the person split does not only occur in forms but also inconstructions, e.g. ergative and passive), (c) the plural is lost before thesingular, and (d) with the dual, the third person is the first to disappear andthe second person is next before the first person (cf. Forchheimer 1953). Thisbook only deals with the second point and, to a lesser extent, with the third.

The data and results from this chapter support the conclusions fromChapters 1 and 2. If Case is inherent, under Reinhart & Reuland’s ChainCondition, pronouns are expected to be interpreted reflexively. Since firstand second person pronouns (especially the plural ones) are the first to losemorphologically marked Case and occur least in inherently marked positions(see next chapter), they should be the first to lose their reflexive nature.

13. Transformational passives should start to occur with first and second person subjects firstsince these are the ones that lose inherent Case before third persons do. I have not investigatedthis and an investigation of the changes in the passive would be a study in itself.

14. An exception is noted by Campbell (1959: 288) in theRushworth Gospels. He says that theforms in -c “invade the dative only in the case ofeowic, which is acc. 16 times, dat. 3 times”.


However, as I argue in Chapters 2 and 4, there is another split, namely firstand second person are weak inφ-features. Third person is strong and onceit loses inherent Case in Middle English, it stops functioning reflexively,starting in the 13th century.

Comparing the paradigm in Table 5.1 with that of Modern English,further changes can be observed: second person singular has disappearedaltogether and the (default) accusativeyou is now used in subject as well asobject position. I will not go into any of the reasons for the demise of thefamiliar, singular form (see Abbott 1872; Kellner 1905; Finkenstaedt 1963;Wales 1996 etc.). The loss of these familiar forms, however, is not related tothe loss of inherent Case.

C 6

Ergativity and the person split

In the previous chapter, I argue that first and second person pronouns loseinherent Case before third person ones. In this chapter, I examine a construc-tion in Old and Middle English where subjects have inherent Case, namelythe impersonal or (morphologically) ergative construction, a constructionwhere the ‘highest’ argument (on a thematic hierarchy such as Causer >Agent > Experiencer > Location > Theme)1 does not have nominative Case.Here too, first and second person are the first to disappear. Besides the termimpersonal constructions, I use ‘ergative’ to mean that the Agent or Exper-iencer has a non-nominative Case. It is a construction in which the Agenthas the Case of an Instrumental (cf. Finck 1907: 211; Vaillant 1936: 94). Forinstance, in Urdu/Hindi, Experiencer subjects are dative, but genitive andlocative Cases occur on subjects as well (with or without the help ofprepositions); in Old Egyptian, to name but one of the numerous instances,the possessive is dative (cf. Gardiner 1927 [1957]: 88–9).

In Old and Early Middle English, these constructions display a partialperson split. As before, I account for the person split in terms of the differ-ence between Interpretable and Uninterpretable Case features. This chapterprovides additional evidence for the claims of the previous chapter: first andsecond person pronouns start to have structural Case (i.e. Uninterpretablefeatures) earlier than third person ones. Two ergative constructions areexamined: ‘possessives’ withbe in 6.1 and experiencer verbs and passives in6.2. My aim is not to provide (yet another) analysis of the impersonalconstruction but to see what it reveals about the Case of pronouns. Note that

1. Many different hierarchies have been suggested and, in some (cf. e.g. Dixon 1994: 6–7),thematic roles are not seen as primitives but as related to event structure. Regarding Theme, Iassume, as in Pesetsky (1995), that it should be split in Target and Causer.


in Chapter 5, I argue that Old English passives are in fact verbs that assignan Experiencerθ-role.

6.1 Old English possessives and the person split

6.1.1 Possession

As is well-known (Benveniste 1966; Lyons 1967; and more recently Freeze1992; Kayne 1993; Mahajan 1994/1997), many languages lack a possessive‘have’ and it is often said that ‘have’ is nothing but ‘be’ with a prepositionassigning inherent Case: “avoir n’est rien autre qu’unêtre-àinversé:mihi estpecuniase retourne enhabeo pecuniam” (Benveniste 1966: 197). I argue thatOld English is in the process of eradicating the ‘be-to’ construction in favorof the ‘have’ one. There are, however, still many ‘be-to’ constructions.

Possession in Old English can be expressed throughagan ‘owe, own’(cf. Clark Hall’s 1894 entry) andhabban‘hold’, but there are impersonal,i.e. ergative, ways as well,2 namely withbe and with the possessor markeddative. Instances of this construction inBeowulfcan be found in (1) to (6).3

There is never agreement between the verb and the ergative/impersonalsubject, as (2) shows:

(1) Beo 2196–7Him wæs bam samod / … londthem- was- both- together land‘Together they possessed land.’

(2) Beo 49him wæs geomor sefathem- was- sad heart-

‘They had a sad heart.’

2. Verbs such aspossessandbelongdo not appear until Middle English. TheOED lists thefirst instance ofpossessin Caxton in 1486 with the meaning of ‘hold, occupy’; according to theOED belongwith a dative subject first occurs in 1393 (Piers Plowman, version C) and theearliest adjectivebi-long with a possessive sense occurs in the middle of the 13th century.

3. This construction often expresses a lack of possession. This may be because of therelationship between ergativity and non-agentivity.

ERGATIVITY AND THE PERSON SPLIT 225

(3) Beo 40–1Him on bearme læg / madma mænigohim on lap lay treasures many‘He had many treasures on his lap.’

(4) Beo 2493Næs him ænig þearfnot was him any need‘It was not necessary for him.’

(5) Beo 2876þa him wæs elnes þearfwhen him was courage need‘he was in need of courage.’

(6) Beo 201þa him wæs manna þearfthat him- men- were need‘he did not have enough men.’

Sentences such as (1) can be found in other languages. For instance, (7)occurs in Urdu/Hindi, (8) in Gothic, (9) in Navajo, and (10) in Latin:

(7) mujhee dukh he˜me- sadness is‘I am sad.’

(8) saurga mis ist mikilaworry me- is much‘I am much worried.’(from van Hamel 1931: 192 and the translation in the King James useshave)

(9) chidí shee holo½car me-with area-exist‘I have a car.’

(10) Quibus opes nullae suntwhom- wealth no are‘who have no wealth.’(from Allen & Greenough 1888 [1931]: 232)

A second way to indicate possession is throughagan, the precursor ofModern Englishought. However, inBeowulf, for example, the instances of


agan as possessive are rare and predominantly mean ‘rule’ rather than‘possess’. In (11) to (17), I list all occurrences. Note that all are ‘personal’,i.e. their highest argument is nominative:

(11) Beo 31leof-land fruma lange ahtebeloved country king long ruled‘The king ruled his beloved country for long.’

(12) Beo 487–8Ahte ic holdra þy læs / deorre dugudðehad I dead bodies the less dear soldiers‘I had fewer men, fewer good soldiers.’

(13) Beo 522þær he folc ahtewhere he his people ruled

(14) Beo 533þæt ic mere-strengo maran ahtethat I sea-strength more had‘I showed more strength in swimming.’

(15) Beo 1087–8þæt hie healfre geweald / wið Eotena bearn agan mostonthat they- half- power with Jutes’ child have must-

‘that they should share power with the Jutes.’

(16) Beo 1727He ah ealra gewealdhe has all power‘He has power over all.’

(17) Beo 2608swa his fæder ahte‘which his father possessed.’

A third way of expressing possession is by means ofhabban, which likeagan, is not straightforwardly possessive and its meaning can be seen as‘hold; grasp’, as in (18) to (21). There are a total of 34 instances, of whichonly 4 are given here:


(18) Beo 79se þe his wordes geweald wide hæfdehe that his words power wide had‘whose words held wide power.’

(19) Beo 270Habbað we to þæm mæran micel ærendehave we for that- very great- (lord) message‘We have for the famous lord an important message.’

(20) Beo 379–81þæt he XXXtiges / manna mægencræft on his mundgripe /that he thirty- men- strength in his handgrip heaþorof hæbbebrave has‘that he, the brave one, holds the strength of 30 men in the grip of hishand.’

(21) Beo 383þæs ic wen hæbbewhich I belief hold‘as I assume.’

Unlike be in (1) to (6) but likeagan in (11) to (17),habbanin (18) to (21)never has dative subjects. Notice that the subjects in (1) to (6) are only thirdperson ones, unlike the ones withhabban. I turn to this now.

6.1.2 A person split

In many languages that are morphologically ergative (cf. Dixon 1994), thereis a person split along a person hierarchy of 1 > 2 > 3 > animate NP >inanimate NP.4 First and second persons tend to be non-ergative (i.e.nominative/accusative) whereas third persons tend to be ergative (ergative/absolutive). The reason behind this is that first person is more likely to bethe Agent than an inanimate object (cf. Silverstein 1976). InBeowulf, aperson split can be observed in the possessives above: they only occur with

4. As before, my emphasis is on pronouns. Allen (1995: 232ff.) argues that pronouns (in e.g.Ormulum) are more often marked dative in impersonal constructions than full nouns. Thereason might be that marking on pronouns was more overt.


third person. As another example, inBeowulf, the instances ofwen ‘belief’that are combined with eitherbeor haveare listed as (22) to (25). All thirdperson pronouns and full NPs are impersonal and combined withbe, whereasthe first person ones are personal and combined withhave:

(22) Beo 3000ðæs ðe ic wen hafothat- that I belief have‘therefore I believe.’

(23) Beo 2911–2Nu ys leodum wen / orleghwileNow is people- expectation wartime,‘Now people expect a time of war.’

(24) Beo 383þæs ic wen hæbbewhich I belief hold‘as I assume.’

(25) Beo 1873Him wæs bega wenhim was both- probable‘He thought both possible.’

Thus, there are a variety of possessive constructions inBeowulf: with be,they are ergative and withhave they are not. What is important for thepurposes of this book is that a person split exists with ergative constructionsindicating that third persons are assigned dative (i.e. inherent Case) but thatfirst and second are not. In addition to ergative structures such as (1) to (6),Old English has other constructions where the ‘subject’ is marked dative andwhich in Modern English would be nominative. These are discussed in thenext section; the person split is present there as well.

6.2 Impersonals and the person split

6.2.1 Impersonals

Constructions such as (26) are numerous, as is well-known (cf. Jespersen1894; Van der Gaaf 1904; McCawley 1976; Lightfoot 1979; Fischer & van


der Leek 1983; von Seefranz-Montag 1983; and Allen 1995 to name but afew). As Denison (1993) mentions, there is a lot of confusion around theterm ‘impersonal’. In these constructions, the ‘highest’ argument does nothave nominative Case (on a thematic hierarchy such as Causer > Agent >Experiencer > Theme). To give an idea of the variety, I list all the impersonalswith ‘him’ and verbs other than ‘be’ in (26) to (46) and all occurrences of‘him’ and ‘be’ in (47) to (61). Note that it is hard to separate possessives, asin (1) to (6) above, from the experiencer constructions, as in (47). Sentences(1) to (6) above and (26) to (61) below should serve to give a picture of allimpersonal constructions inBeowulfthat involve third personhim:

(26) Beo 56–7him eft onwoc / heah Healfdenehim later was-born high Healfdene‘To him the high Healfdene was born later.’

(27) Beo 67Him on mod bearnhim to mind came‘It came to his mind.’

(28) Beo 76him on fyrste gelomp … (þæt)him quickly happened ‘he quickly managed.’

(29) Beo 687swa him gemet þinceso him find thing‘as he sees fit.’

(30) Beo 1252swa him ful oft gelampas them very often happened‘as happened to them often.’

(31) Beo 1718–9hwæþere him on ferhþe greow / breosthord blodreowhowever him on spirit grew thought cruel‘However, cruel thoughts came to his mind.’


(32) Beo 1736–7ne him inwitsorh / on sefan sweorceðnot him sorrow on mind darkens‘sorrow does not darken his mind.’

(33) Beo 1740–1oðþæt him on innan oferhygda dæl / weaxeð ond wridaðuntil him in inner proud part grew and fastened‘until his arrogance took hold in him to such an extent and grew.’

(34) Beo 1839þæm þe him selfa deahhim that him self is capable‘who himself is a capable person.’

(35) Beo 1878–9ac him on hreþre hygebendum fæst / æfter deorum men dyrnebut him in heart/mind heart-strings constant after dear man muchlangaðlongs‘but he longs much for the dear one in his heart/mind held by hisheart-strings.’

(36) Beo 1880–2Him Beowulf þanan / guðrinc goldwlanc, græsmoldan træd /him Beowulf away warrior richly-adorned grassy-earth trod since hremigtreasure proud‘Of his treasure proud, Beowulf walked away richly-adorned on thegreen earth.’

(37) Beo 2062con him land geareknow him land well‘he knows the land well.’

(38) Beo 2098–9hwæþre him sio swiðre swaðe weardade / hand on Hiortewhether him his right remained behind hand in Heorot‘However, his right hand remained in Heorot.’


(39) Beo 2323him seo wen geleahhim his belief deceived‘All failed him.’

(40) Beo 2461þuhte him eall to rumthought him all too roomy/spacious‘he thought all too spacious.’

(41) Beo 2468þe him swa sar belampwhich him so sorrowful occurred‘which he attracted so sorrowfully.’

(42) Beo 2637gif him þyslicu þearf gelumpeif him such need occurred‘If he (ever) had such need.’

(43) Beo 2714þæt him on breostum bealniðe weoll / attor on innanthat him in chest deadly sprung poison on inside‘that inside his chest the deadly poison was working.’

(44) Beo 2854him wiht ne speowhim any not succeeded‘He did not succeed.’

(45) Beo 3026hu him æt æte speowhow him at food succeeded‘how well he was eating.’

(46) Beo 3057swa him gemet ðuhtewhich him appropriate seemed‘which he thought appropriate.’

(47) Beo 755Hyge wæs him hinfusheart/courage was him ready (to depart)‘He lost his courage.’


(48) Beo 501–2wæs him Beowulfes sið / …micel æfþuncawas him Beowulf’s journey much irritant‘He was irritated by Beowulf’s journey.’

(49) Beo 203þeah he him leof wærethough he them dear was.

‘though they loved him.’

(50) Beo 733–4þa him alumpen wæs / wist-fylle wenthat him happened was meal-ful hope‘He hoped for a rich meal.’

(51) Beo 1319–20gif him wære … niht getæse.if him was night pleasing‘if his night had been pleasant.’

(52) Beo 1103þa him swa geþearfod wæswhich/though them need was.‘which they were of necessity forced to do.’

(53) Beo 1873Him wæs bega wenhim was both- probable‘he thought both possible.’

(54) Beo 1876[W]æs him se man to þon leof[was him the man- to that dear‘He held the man so dear.’

(55) Beo 1921næs him feor þanonnot-was. him far from-there‘they would not have to go far.’

(56) Beo 2043him bið grim sefahim be bitter heart‘he will be angry.’


(57) Beo 2180næs him hreoh sefanot-was him angry heart‘he was not angry.’

(58) Beo 2332swa him geþywe ne wæssuch him characteristic not was‘He was not like that.’

(59) Beo 2419Him wæs geomor sefahim was troubled heart‘He had a troubled heart.’

(60) Beo 2467þeah him leof ne wæsthough him dear not was‘though he did not like …’

(61) Beo 2632him wæs sefa geomor‘He had a troubled heart.’

As mentioned, these constructions are often referred to as impersonals, orpsych-verbs as in Belletti & Rizzi (1988) (see also Pesetsky 1995). I will notargue in favor of one division over the other (many have been suggested).Their experiencer subject, even though it is not marked nominative and doesnot agree (at least inBeowulf) with the verb, is said to be the subject.Evidence for this is provided in Lightfoot (1979), namely the coordinationfacts, as in (62), where the second personal subject is deleted under identitywith the preceding impersonal subject. Allen (1986) develops this more andshows that subjects of the second conjunct are only freely deletable if thefirst occurrence is a nominative or a preposed dative:

(62) Chaucer, General Prologue, 785–6Us thoughte it was noght worth to make it wys, And — graunted hymwithouten moore avys.‘We did not consider it worthwhile to hold off, and granted him with-out more counsel.’


More examples can be found in Pogatscher (1901: 280ff.). In Beowulf, aconstruction such as (62) does not occur with the pronouns examined (seevan Gelderen 2000), but, as mentioned, the exact analysis of impersonals isnot relevant to this chapter.

Constructions such as (61) occur frequently inBeowulf (42 times withhim as subject), and not only with pronominal experiencers, as (63) and (64)show. I focus on pronouns, however:

(63) Beo 639Þam wife þa word wel licodonthe- woman- those words liked-

‘Those words were pleasing to the woman.’

(64) Beo 2032 (see Dobbie p. 221)Mæg þæs þonne ofþyncan ðeodne [or -en]may that- then grieve/displease lord- Heoðobeardna / ond þegna gehwam þaraHeoðobeards- and everyone- warrior- those-

leodapeople-

‘That may then be a vexation to the lord of the Heathobards and toeach of the warriors of that tribe’ (Dobbie’s translation)

‘Passives’, as in (65) to (72), discussed and analyzed as ergative in theprevious chapter, can be added as well:

(65) Beo 140ða him gebeacnod wæswhich him indicated (by means of a sign) was‘which he was shown.’

(66) Beo 1192Him wæs ful borenhim was cup carried‘He was brought a cup.’

(67) Beo 1269þær him aglæca ætgræpe wearðhere him monster grabbed became‘here he was grabbed by the monster.’


(68) Beo 1330Wearð him on Heorote to handbananbecame him in Heorot to hand-slayer‘he was slain in Heorot with her bare hands.’

(69) Beo 1356–7hwæþer him ænig wæs ær acenned / dyrna gastawhether him any was before born bad spirit-

‘whether to him before this a bad [ghost] had been born.’

(70) Beo 2682Him þæt gifeðe ne wæs (þæt…)him that given not was ‘He wasn’t granted that.’

(71) Beo 2696swa him gecynde wæsso him taught was‘as he had been taught.’

(72) Beo 2983ða him gerymed wearðthen him allowed were‘when they were allowed.’

In this subsection and in 6.1, I have given instances of ergative construc-tions, i.e. constructions where the Experiencer or Agent receives inherentCase. In 6.1.2, I suggest that one of these displays a person split. I now turnto the person split in the ergative constructions dealt with in 6.2.1.

6.2.2 Person split: account and evidence

There are different ways of showing the person split: (a) the ratio of imper-sonally used first person pronouns out of all the dative first person instancesas opposed to the same ratio with third person ones, and (b) the percentageof first person impersonals out of the total of first person personal subjectsas opposed to the percentage of third person ones. Regarding (a), there is atotal of 200 occurrences ofhim, and 42 are used impersonally (=21%).Adding passives, 50 are used impersonally (=25%) with third person asopposed to 7 out of 55 (=13%) with first person. Regarding (b), there is atotal of 353 third person personal pronouns (singular and plural; figures from


Klaeber), as compared to 50 impersonal ones (=12% of all ‘subjects’). Thetotal number of first person pronouns used in a personal construction such as(22) above is 205, as compared to 8 impersonal uses (=4%). Thus, firstperson is used less in an impersonal construction than third person is. I willreturn to these figures, after providing some more Old English data.

If, as I argue, the impersonal construction is ergative and if Old andMiddle English are changing into fully nominative languages, this slightperson split is not unexpected and provides insight into the transition oflanguages from ergative to non-ergative. The 7 instances with first personsingular are listed here; the ones with third person are listed above:

(73) Beo 316Mæl is me to ferantime is me to go‘It is time for me to go.’

(74) Beo 473Sorh is me to secganne on sefan minumgrief is me to say in heart my‘It causes my heart pain to say (what …).’

(75) Beo 1853–4me þin modsefa / licað leng swa wel, leofa Beowulfme your spirit/character like longer so well dear Beowulf‘I like your character better and better, dear Beowulf.’

(76) Beo 2651þæt me is micle leofre þæt …that me is much better ‘That I had much rather.’

(77) Beo 2653Ne þynceð me gerysne þæt …not seems me right that ‘It doesn’t seem right to me that.’

(78) Beo 555hwæþre me gyfeþe wearðwhether me given was‘It was granted me.’


(79) Beo 3088þa me gerymed wæswhich me was cleared‘which was cleared for me.’

With second person pluraleow, the total numbers are perhaps too small tohave any significance. There is 1 impersonal, as in (80), out of a total of 6occurrences witheow. The numbers are also small with first person plural (1impersonal in 10):

(80) Beo 1987Hu lomp eow on lade, leofa Biowulfhow happened you on trip dear Beowulf‘How was your trip, dear Beowulf’?

These figures fit with the general conclusion that plurals change before singulars.The second person singular has more instances and it patterns with the

first singular in that the percentage of impersonally used ones is very low.Out of 44 instances ofþe, 3 are impersonal (6.8%):

(81) Beo 660Ne bið þe wilna gadnot be you willing lack‘You shall lack nothing’

(82) Beo 949Ne bið þe ænigre gadnot be you anything lack‘You shall not want anything.’

(83) Beo 1835þær ðe bið manna þearfwhere you are men missing‘as far as you lack men.’

In Chapter 5, I have mentioned that there might be a slight number split aswell. The plural specially marked accusative is lost before the singular one.This is also true here. For instance, inBeowulf, of the 200 instances ofhim,33 are plural and 167 are singular. The number of plural ergative construc-tions (sentences (1), (2) and (49) above) out of all plurals is 3 (i.e. 9%),whereas the number of singular ergatives is 47 (i.e. 28%).


I started this section by providing two sets of numbers to show theperson split. One was the ratio of impersonal or ergative uses out of the totalnumber of dative forms. Putting the figures for all persons together results inTable 6.1. Statistically, the difference between 1 and 3 (χ2 = 5.342,p<.005), and between 1/2 versus 3 (χ2 = 12.018,p< .001) is significant,but not between 1 and 2, which is not unexpected. Only for third personis number statistically relevant:

Table 6.1.Ergative versus non-ergative uses of first, second and third person dative pronouns

ergative non-ergative Total

112233

070103014703

048009041005120030

055010044006167033

Total 62 253 315

One of the problems with the numbers in this table is that, as shown inChapter 5, numbers forhimmay be low in comparison withmesince the specialaccusative third personhineoccurs more often than the first person one.

The second way to see the person split is to examine the percentage ofimpersonal or ergative use as (of the dative) against the personal or non-ergative use of the nominative form. This is done in Table 6.2. The differ-ence between 1 and 3 (χ2 = 14.269,p< .001), and between 1/2

versus 3 (χ2 = 17.285,p< .001) is significant, but, as above, again notbetween 1 and 2. Only for third person is number statistically relevant:

Table 6.2.Ergative versus nominative

ergative nominative Total

112233

070103014703

181024062012282071

188025065013329074

Total 62 632 694


The problem with this table is that third person pro-drop is more prevalentthan first and second person. Anecdotal data such as (22) to (25) above maybe the most convincing. Van der Gaaf (1904: 25) mentions that the changeto personal constructions occurs because of confusion in the third person. Mydata show the opposite.

In the Junius Manuscript, the same split can be observed. I have onlycalculated the numbers of ergative versus non-ergative dative forms. In thefirst 1000 lines ofGenesis, 8 instances of impersonalmeoccur, as in (84),out of a total of 54 (=15%), whereas the number of impersonalhims, as in(85), is much higher: 31 out of 93 (=33%):

(84) Genesis 425Þæt me is on minum mode swa sarthat me is in my mind so sad‘that I am very sad.’

(85) Genesis 28Him þær sar gelompthem there sad happened‘Sorrow came upon them.’

In conclusion, it can be argued that third person pronouns continue to beassigned thematic (inherent) Case by the verb and need not move to aSpecifier of an FC to check Case. This fits with the data in Chapter 5 whereI argue that morphological Case continues to be assigned to third persons butby Late Old English ceases to be assigned to first and second persons. As Ishow in Chapter 5, however, inherent Case is lost for third person in EarlyMiddle English as well. The two texts that have third person morphologicalCase areThe History of the Holy Rood Tree(HRT) and Layamon. In thesethe person split continues somewhat, as I show now, but it does not continuein the later Middle English texts such asGawain.

6.3 Early Middle English and the demise of the person split

The person split continues up to Early Middle English and is found inLayamon’sBrut (14th century). In the first 6000 lines of the Caligula versionof Layamon, there are 137 instances of impersonalhim, as in (86) to (104)out of a total of 534 occurrences ofhim (=26%, but with 270 instances of


hine added, the number would be 17%), whereas there are 26 instances ofimpersonalmeout of a total of 194 (=13.4%):5

(86) Caligula 4sel þar him þuhte (same in Otho)splendid there he thought ‘Splendid it seemed to him.’

(87) Caligula 6Hit com him on mode(same in Otho)it came him on mind ‘It came to his mind.’

(88) Caligula 60þat him was iqueme (damaged in Otho)that him was comfortable ‘which was comfortable to him.’

(89) Caligula 73þe him was swiþe deore(damaged in Otho)which him was so dear ‘who he loved dearly.’

(90) Caligula 124lað þah him were(same in Otho)loath though him was ‘though he did not like it.’

(91) Caligula 161Wa wes him on liue(same in Otho)woe was him in life ‘He was anguished in life.’

(92) Caligula 201 loð him wes his broþer(same in Otho)and loath him was his brother ‘and he disliked his brother.’

(93) Caligula 245seolcuð him þuhte. swulcere speche(same in Otho)strange him thought such speech ‘he thought such speech strange.’

5. Statistically, the use ofhim is ergative more than the use ofme (p< .001). Addinghine,however, the difference is no longer statistically significant.


(94) Caligula 261þat him best was(same in Otho)which them best was ‘which was best for them.’

(95) Caligula 297hit neas him noht iqueme(same in Otho)it not-was him not pleasing ‘he was not pleased.’

(96) Caligula 307 him þa beth ilomp (different verb but impersonal in Otho)and him then better happened ‘he did better.’

(97) Caligula 387swa him best þuhte (same in Otho)as him best thought ‘as he deemed best.’

(98) Caligula 521þæs tiðende him weren læðe(same except were in Otho)which tidings him were loath ‘he did not like the news.’

(99) Caligula 597heo wes him on heorten leof(same in Otho)she was him in heart dear ‘he loved her.’

(100) Caligula 613Þa þuhte him on his swefne(same in Otho)then thought him in his dream ‘then he dreamt.’

(101) Caligula 629wel wes him on life(same in Otho)well was him in life ‘he felt very well.’

(102) Caligula 632hu him imette(damaged in Otho)how him met ‘how it happened to him.’


(103) Caligula 691wel wes him on liue(same in Otho)‘he felt very well’, see (101).

(104) Caligula 6868þer-fore him ofte scomede. his heorte gromede.therefore him often shamed and his heart angered‘therefore he often felt ashamed and enraged.’ (see (110) for personaluse in Otho)

With first person, the first 6 instances are:

(105) Caligula 529lað þeh hit me were(missing in Otho)loath though it me was ‘though it is unpleasant to me.’

(106) Caligula 1522Þeo art me leof al-so mi fæder(‘harte’ in Otho)you are me dear like my father ‘I love you like my father.’

(107) Caligula 1539Of mine dohtren þu were me durest. nu þu eært me arle læðesof my daughters you were me dearest now you are me least‘Of my daughters I loved you best, now I love you least.’ (same in Otho)

(108) Caligula 1545þis me is iqueme(same in Otho)this me is pleasing ‘This is my wish.’

(109) Caligula 1582 (same in Otho)þe me beoh swiðe deorewhich me is very dear‘which are very dear to me.’

In the first 1600 lines of the somewhat later Otho version of the samemanuscript, 5 of the 43 instances of impersonalhim are damaged or do notoccur, but 2 instances have become personal, as in (110), the counterpart of(104), and in (111), where the counterpart is not provided. Bøgholm(1944: 42) mentions 2 others later on where Caligula has an impersonal,namely (112) and (114), but where Otho uses a personal construction, as in


(113) and (115). Note that in (113), only the second part of the sentence hasbecome personal as is obvious from the plural inflection onweren. Of the 6instances of impersonalme, only one (l. 529) is damaged:

(110) Otho 6868þar-fore he ofte samede. and his heorte gramede.‘Therefore he often felt shame and his heart was troubled.’

(111) Otho 1117glad he was on heorteglad he was in heart‘He was happy.’

(112) Caligula 9072Wa was þan kinge. swa wes al his duŠeðewoe was the- king-. so was all his followers(Note that Bøgholm has a dativeþam)‘The king was very unhappy and so were the soldiers.’

(113) Otho 9072Wo was þan kinge. so weren alle his cnihtes.

(114) Caligula 243þe scal beon þa wrse.you- be the worse‘It shall be worse for you.’

(115) Otho 243þou salt beo þe worse.you- shall be the worse.

So, since Layamon has morphological Case with third person, one expects aconstruction that uses it with third person. One such construction is theimpersonal.

The person split is lost in the 13th century; inGawain and the GreenKnight, Chaucer, and Gower, it is absent. For instance, in the first 7000 linesof theCanterbury Tales, 30 of the roughly 250 instances ofmeare imperson-al (=12%) and 35 of the 320 instances ofhim are impersonal (=11%). InGower’sConfessio Amantis(1390s), there are 96 instances ofmeand 16 areused impersonally (=17%) and the numbers are roughly the same forhim,where 40 impersonals appear out of a total of 220 (=18%). Neither thedifference in Chaucer nor that in Gower is significant. There is later also a


construction that is a grammaticalized discourse marker, namelymethinks. Ido not count this as an impersonal but as a set phrase. López-Couso (1996)argues it becomes fossilized in the 15th century and that by 1500, only firstperson singulars are possible. This date is confirmed by the use inThePaston Lettersand in Shakespeare’sFirst Folio where forms such as ‘methought’ occur but not ‘him thought’. Most of the verbs and adjective havebecome exclusively personal, however (e.g. ‘glad’, ‘loath’ and ‘dear’).

Since the dative in Old and Early Middle English, as in (86), is optional-ly assigned to the Experiencer (cf. Belletti 1988) and since it is assigned onthe basis of aθ-role (Experiencer) rather than of a particular structuralposition, I assume it is inherent. In terms of Minimalist features, the option-ality means they are Interpretable and need not be deleted by LF, at least asfeatures of the nominal expression. As structural Case is introduced in the13th century (cf. e.g. Chapter 5), these Case features become Uninterpretableand must be checked in a higher FC, such as C or I, which is what causesthe (slight) person split.6

The loss of the specially marked accusative forms, such asmec‘me-’andþec ‘you.-’, is indicative of the loss of inherent Case. The latterforms disappear earlier (by the 13th century) than the ones for third personsuch ashine ‘him-’, as shown in Chapter 5. Thus, inBeowulf, first andsecond person specially marked accusative forms, such asmecandþec, arenot as frequent in relation to dative forms as third person ones are. Asmentioned (see Table 5.3 above), there are 55 instances ofmeand 16 ofmec(=23%); 167 instances ofhim (1 of hym) and 73 ofhine/hyne(=30%). Firstperson accusatives may already be weaker (not in statistically relevant waysthough). The first and second person ones disappear throughout Old English.In the Junius Manuscript, third personhine is quite strong, butmecoccursonly once. In Caligula,hine is still quite strong, but the special first andsecond person pronoun forms have disappeared and Case on full NPs is nolonger clear; in Otho, the number ofhines decreases a little in relation to thenumber ofhims but not that much and, as in Caligula, no special first and

6. Cf. Rice & Saxon (1995) for a similar idea in Athabascan languages. Mahajan (1997: 47)mentions the person split in certain languages and argues that those “will require somemechanism by which P assignment is blocked… when the subject is a 1/2 pronoun”. In anote he suggests that first and second persons are ‘higher’ than third persons.


second accusative forms appear. InGawain and the Green Knight(and inChaucer and Gower),hineceases to occur and so do first and second personspecial forms. Therefore, in Old and Early Middle English, the demise ofimpersonals and the loss of inherent Case are related because, in both cases,first and second person pronouns are the first to experience the loss.

Fischer & van der Leek (1983: 366) argue “that the impersonal verb,having lost its ability to assign two lexical Cases, due to the breakdown ofthe morphological Case system, could no longer assign more than one Case(i.e. structural Case through Government) and that such impersonal verbs asactually survived (many were lost from the language) did so in the shape ofone of the nominative subject constructions that it could of old manifestitself in”. Accordingly, the impersonal construction is lost as soon asmorphological Case is. As Allen (1995) argues, this cannot be completelycorrect since the impersonal construction outlasts the dative/accusativedistinction for some centuries. In Allen’s (1995: 219) words: “[i]t is clear thatthe domain of lexical Case marking was greatly reduced by the middle of thethirteenth century in all dialects of English except Kentish”. Therefore, Allenargues that the demise of impersonals (e.g. Allen 1995) is not a direct resultof the loss of inherent Case because impersonals persist long after the loss ofinherent Case. I agree that the demise of Case cannot be the direct cause ofthe demise of impersonals. My main interest is not the loss of the impersonalper sebut rather what this loss says about person features. The insight is thatthe person split disappears in texts that no longer have a morphologicaldistinction. This shows that the different persons lose inherent Case atdifferent rates. Layamon has a person split and has inherent Case; Chaucerhas neither.

In addition to first and second person being more likely to have structur-al rather than inherent Case, I have suggested, on the basis of evidence fromChapters 3 and 4, that first and second persons are more likely to check (orbe assigned) structural Case because theirφ-features are checked. Forinstance, a number of linguists have claimed that first and second personshave no real number features (cf. Kayne 1991; Lehmann 1993: 143).


6.4 Conclusion

Concluding Chapter 6, I argue that Old and Early Middle English haveergative and passive constructions that display a (slight) person split. Thus,third person is more likely to appear in inherently Case marked positions.The same person split occurs in the loss of the specially marked accusative/dative forms, as argued in Chapters 1 and 5. The split is accounted for iffirst and second person pronouns lose inherent Case before third person onesdo. This loss is shown in both their morphology and in their function as‘ergative’ subject.

C 7

Conclusion

7.1 General conclusions

I examine several instances in the history of English where pronouns behavedifferently depending on whether they are first, second, or third person, andto a lesser extent whether they are singular or plural. I start by looking atreflexives: simple pronouns are interpreted reflexively. Reinhart & Reulandprovide a principle as to what elements function reflexively. Inherently Casemarked pronouns can under their principle function reflexively and I show thatpronouns in Old English indeed are inherently marked. This is not the entireexplanation. As the discussion of pro-drop and verbal agreement shows,certain person and number features are ‘weak’ in that they do not licensepro-drop and the inflection on the verb disappears early. This weakness alsorenders a pronoun into a less referential element, according to Reinhart andReuland, and enables it to function reflexively in Middle English.

My book ties together changes in four areas — reflexives, pro-drop,verbal agreement, and Case — by examining the strengths of certainfeatures. Case changes from inherent (morphologically marked) to structural(i.e. Uninterpretable).φ-features change from specified to non-specified.Once theφ-features are ‘weak’, they become Uninterpretable. Thus, asEnglish changes from a synthetic to an analytic language, there is a generalincrease in Uninterpretable features. Hence, the absence of special reflexivesin many synthetic languages (Old English, Middle Dutch, Old Saxon, OldEgyptian) may not be coincidental.

There are other conclusions about reflexives. Regarding the BindingDomain, it is shown that reflexives are first introduced in the indirectdomain, as objects of prepositions, not as direct objects. I argue in 2.5 thatthe reason for this is related to Case conflict. The data also show that the


introduction of special reflexives cannot be for pragmatic reasons, i.e. todisambiguate a sentence, since first and second person reflexives do not createan ambiguous context and are still introduced. In addition, the behavior ofthird pronouns shows that these involve a DP even at an early stage, thusproviding evidence for the inclusion of such an FC in Old English.

A theme explored in Chapter 4 is verb-movement and its relationship tofeatures. I show that overt morphology is not always present in cases ofovert verb-movement. The reason for this is that checking in FCs, such as Cand I, is different from checking under government but that the former isintroduced when features become Uninterpretable. I now summarize each‘text’ or ‘author’.

7.2 Text-by-text conclusions

7.2.1 Old English

In Beowulf, as shown in Chapter 1, simple pronouns function reflexively.There is 1 instance where a reflexive pronoun is modified by ‘self’ but itsuse is probably emphatic. The reason pronouns function reflexively is thatthey have inherent Case, cf. Chapter 5. First and second person accusativeCase, especially in the plural, is already ‘waning’ because the specialaccusative forms occur in a limited number of constructions and are few innumber. However, first and second person features are also somewhat ‘weak’since pro-drop is not common (it mainly occurs in the third person singular)and, in the case of first person singular and first and second person plural,there is some loss of verbal inflection.

In The Junius Manuscript, simple pronouns function reflexively, due tothe presence of inherent Case. There are 3 ‘self’ forms that possibly functionto mark a prepositional object reflexive. Two of these are first personsingular, and 1 is third person, which is interesting in light of the fact thatmorphological Case for first person singulars is disappearing (see Table 5.3)and this might explain the specially marked reflexive. There is not enoughdata, however, to be sure. Except for first and second person singular, verbalagreement is not often lost and pro-drop occurs, especially with third person.Thus, theφ-features are specified.

CONCLUSION 249

The Exeter Bookdisplays strong inherent Case for all persons (again seeTable 5.3). There are 10 instances of possibly reflexive ‘self’ combinationsin all positions and with all persons, but simple pronouns are mainly used,as expected if Case is inherent. Agreement is strong (except for some firstand second person reduction) and pro-drop occurs, as expected.

The Vespasian Psalterhas the strongest morphologically marked Case,perhaps due to its early date, and continues to have simple pronouns asreflexives. There are 5 ‘self’ forms, 4 of which modify a third person inoblique object position. There are no clearly emphatic uses of ‘self’. Pro-drop occurs, especially with third person and agreement is full.

The Lindisfarne Gospelsand Rushworth Glosses, representing severaldialect areas, show that ‘self’ forms increase depending on the dialect anddate: the earlier and more northern a text, the fewer the forms (cf. Ta-ble 1.6). As in theVespasian Psalter, few ‘self’ combinations occur with fullNPs, i.e. ‘self’ is not predominantly emphatic the way it is in other texts.Pro-drop occurs especially with third person, and agreement is reduced inparticular with second person singular and plural and first person plural inthe more northern dialects. Some correlation between pro-drop and fullagreement can be found. Morphologically differentiated Case is very muchalive, especially inLindisfarne, which is expected since pronouns functionreflexively. Interesting in this text is that second person is modified moreoften by ‘self’. This may be caused by the reduced second person inflection,and by the slight loss of special accusative Case as compared to first andthird person.

The West-Saxon (Cotton) Gospelshows much less pro-drop, a reductionin morphological Case for the third person and a complete loss for first andsecond persons (cf. Table 5.3). The number of ‘self’ forms increases, unlikein the ‘identical’ Lindisfarne and Rushworth versions (see Table 1.6).Agreement is reduced in comparison with the other versions.

The works of Alfred and of Ælfric are very similar in that agreement isreduced, especially in first and second person VS constructions, that pro-dropis very infrequent, and that the special accusative form only occurs with thethird person. The use of ‘self’ has increased, particularly with third person,which provides some indication that it is more grammaticalized as reflexivepronoun than first or second person. The latter is important (cf. Section 2.5)since with third person, there is evidence that ‘self’ is the head of thereflexive earlier than with first and second person.


7.2.2 Middle English

The History of the Holy Rood Treeis a short West Saxon text from the 12thcentury with very few ‘self’ reflexives. Regular pronouns continue tofunction reflexively, expected since third person still has inherent Case andfirst and second have weakφ-features since pro-drop is very rare and thereis some reduction in agreement.

In the thirteenth-century West Midlands Layamon, agreement is lost withfirst and second person (especially plural) verbs. Pro-drop is rare andmorphological Case is marked only on third person pronouns, but here it isquite strong. This is the reason the latter occur slightly more often in passiveand ‘ergative’ constructions (cf. Chapter 6). Simple pronouns functionreflexively, as expected from the Case situation (for third person) andφ-feature properties (for first and second person). There are some reflexive‘self’ compounds, especially in third person since inherent Case is gettingweaker. The position in which these occur is oblique (i.e. prepositional orindirect object); reflexive direct objects are simple pronouns, as expected (cf.2.5) if the pronoun has a weak form that only appears licensed by the verb.The form of the special reflexive pronoun is grammaticalizing in first andsecond person reflexives since it changes fromme seolfto mi seolf.

The two thirteenth-century versions ofHali Meidenhad(HM) each have15 possibly reflexive ‘self’ forms, mainly in prepositional object position.Simple pronouns continue to be used for first and second person but rarelyfor third person. Since there is no inherent Case on pronouns, and very littleon full nouns, it is appropriate that third person simple pronouns (which havespecifiedφ-features) cease to be used reflexively. First and second personverbal agreement is weakening in the Titus version. Hence, simple pronounsremain used as reflexives. It is unclear why they are in the Bodley versionsince agreement there is more complete.

The five poems of the ‘Gawain Poet’ show that inherent Case hasdisappeared and pro-drop does not occur, but agreement renders a thirdperson specified so that it rarely occurs reflexively. Instead, ‘self’ is mainlyused with third person in both direct and oblique positions. First and secondperson simple pronouns are used in direct object positions, but they arecombined with ‘self’ in oblique positions. This shows that the personfeatures of first and second person pronouns are unspecified (cf. 2.5.1) and

CONCLUSION 251

occur in direct object position only. The ‘self’ form appears in obliqueposition due to its oblique Case (see 2.5.2).

Chaucer is very similar to Gawain except that second person may patternmore with third rather than with first person, especially where ‘self’ reflex-ives are concerned (cf. Table 2.4). Thus, both second and third person arespecified for person features, and this causes the frequency of their use asreflexives to decline. This is mirrored in verbal agreement since both secondand third person show specific endings in Chaucer. There is no pro-drop.

Cursor Mundi and The York Playshave some first and second personsimple pronouns used reflexively but rarely third person ones. ‘Self’compounds are common and occur in all positions. Case is structural andagreement is sometimes differentiated for third person, as expected from thereflexive facts.

7.2.3 Early Modern and Modern English

The reflexive use in thePaston Letters(PL) is very close to modern use. Theonly difference is that some intrinsically reflexive verbs still occur withsimple reflexive objects. This is expected if Case is inherent. The mainchange between a Middle English text, such as Chaucer, and a later text,such as PL, is that simple pronouns cease to function reflexively. Mysuggestion in Chapter 2 is that FCs start to check theφ-features and, just asin the case of structural Case, this renders them referential.

Shakespeare’s use is less ‘modern’ than PL since simple pronounscontinue to be used anaphorically. First and second person combinations withself are always printed separately in the First Folio, indicating they are lessgrammaticalized than third person reflexives. This stage is puzzling. Onecould argue this is a phase in which theφ-features are weak (even thoughthere is limited pro-drop and inflection) but not yet Uninterpretable.

7.3 Ramifications for theories of change

The changes discussed in this book are relevant for theories of linguisticchange in the following ways.

First, morphological change has syntactic consequences but not necessar-ily at the same time. For instance, the two versions of Layamon’sBrut show


that even though the reflexive pronoun is more grammaticalized (the pronounand ‘self’ become a compound and the Case changes) in the less archaicversion, the syntax (i.e. its feature composition) remains the same (cf. 2.1).This is true in HRT as well and there are some northern texts such as theYork Playsthat show ‘modern’ morphology but not such modern syntax. Thesame lack of parallelism between morphology and syntax occurs with respectto the relationship between pro-drop and rich verbal agreement (cf. 4.2.4).

Second, languages differ in terms of whether or not certain features areInterpretable, and therefore change is possible as well. Thus, in Old English,Case on nouns is Interpretable, but in Modern English, it is not. In French,number on nouns is Interpretable and person is not (cf. 0.1). As a result,pronouns differ in feature content as well as in structure (cf. 2.5.1). Thesechanges contribute to the change from a synthetic to an analytic language. Therelationship between strong prosody and Interpretable features is also raisedin 2.5: prosodically strong pronouns, such ashine andmec are typicallyInterpretable and have full stress since they participate in alliteration.

Third, as Pintzuk (1991) has argued, there may be stages of a languagewhen two grammars work side by side. The conclusions in this booksupport the view that in Middle English Case could be inherent or structural.Verb-movement is another instance of a rule that is widespread by 1400 butneed not always take place due to the optional activation of FCs such asI(nflection).

7.4 Further research

It is clear that verbal agreement and Case disappear around the same timethat auxiliaries and determiners start to occupy FCs. However, which changetriggers which remains unclear. There is also a question whether this differ-ence between a synthetic and analytic stage is a minor one or a macro-parametric one, to use Baker’s (1996) term. It would be minor if one arguedthat either the auxiliary checks the features or the verb does but that thechecking remains the same. It would be major if one argued that the check-ing and the features were distinctively different. I am inclined towards thelatter view.

Further analysis is required into the exact relationship between unspeci-fied (in the sense of the Chain Condition) and (Minimalist) Uninterpretable

CONCLUSION 253

features on the one hand and specified and Interpretable features on theother. Unspecified features turn into Uninterpretable ones (in the 15thcentury), and the reasons behind this change need to be explained.

Additional research is also needed as to which features are cross-linguis-tically always Interpretable or always Uninterpretable. It is hard to imaginethat tense would be Uninterpretable once a language has it. In languageswhere Case is Interpretable, one would not expect ‘mistakes’ such as in (1)since there would not be a possible interpretation. In Modern English, (1)does not lead to a wrong interpretation since the position of the NP is crucialand its Case (which is deleted) is not. Tense, however, is crucial and (1)would not be interpreted as (2):

(1) Him saw me.

(2) Him see/s me.

If Binding Theory is seen in terms of Reinhart & Reuland’s Condition onChains, we need to examine further why certain features render an elementnon-referential. In 0.2, I speculate on why Interpretable features have thiscapacity, but Uninterpretable ones do not. It is as if Binding Theory operatedbefore LF (as was claimed in earlier work). A Minimalist alternative may beavailable, but remains to be worked out in detail. If the checking of theUninterpretable features occurs before LF (cf. Chomsky 1995), the predicateis probably marked reflexive in the case of an object without referentialfeatures but is not if the object has referential features. In the case of anobject with Interpretable features, the latter are not checked but selected atthe time of merge as non-referential.

Lastly, in most of my person split discussions, I have lumped first andsecond person together. A finer distinction needs to be made.

Appendix

Main Old English Works used

Beowulf. Mixed dialect Northumbrian/West Saxon; manuscript from c.1000 but based onearlier version (cf. Bjork & Obermeier 1997). Edition: Klaeber (1922); Zupitza(1959). Concordance: Bessinger & Smith (1969). Cited by line number fromKlaeber. Klaeber’s Glossary is used for the glosses as well as the (German)translation in Klegraf, Kühlwein, Nehls & Zimmermann (1976).

Vespasian Psalter. Mercian interlinear gloss; early half of the 9th century. Edition: Kuhn(1965). Cited by psalm and line.

Lindisfarne Gospels. Northumbrian interlinear gloss; c.950. Edition: Skeat (1881–7), butsee Campbell (1959: 360ff.) for more recent references on this. Cited by chapterand verse.

Rushworth Glosses. Interlinear gloss; c.970. Matthew is Mercian; Mark, Luke and Johnare Northumbrian. Edition: Skeat (1881–7), cf. Campbell (1959: 362–3) for back-ground. Cited by chapter and verse.

The Paris Psalter. West-Saxon, 11th century (see Bruce 1894). Edition: Krapp (1932).Cited by psalm and line.

The Junius Manuscript. Written between the 7th and 10th centuries (some argue partly bythe Caedmon poet) but compiled towards the late 10th. Edition: Krapp (1931).Concordance: Bessinger & Smith (1978). A translation is available from the‘Berkeley Digital Library Sunsite’ (sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Junius; 01/12/00).Cited by text and line number.

The Exeter Book. For details, cf. Bradley (1982). Edition: Krapp & Kirk Dobbie (1936);Mackie (1934). Concordance: Bessinger & Smith (1978). Cited by text and line number.

Gregory’s Pastoral Care. Early West Saxon, late 9th century, ascribed to King Alfred.Edition: Sweet (1871 [1934]), who provides both Cotton and Hatton versions sideby side, as well as a gloss. Cited by page and line.

Boethius. Early West-Saxon, ascribed to King Alfred. Edition: Sedgefield (1899). Citedby page and line.

Homilies, by Ælfric. West Saxon, circa 1000. Editions:Catholic Homilies I: electronicedition from Dictionary of Old English;Catholic Homilies II: Godden (1979);Supplementary Homilies: Pope (1967–8). Cited by page and line.

256 APPENDIX

Main Early Middle English used

The History of the Holy Rood Tree(HRT). West-Saxon, 12th century. Edition: Napier(1894). Cited by page and line number.

Katherine Group (e.g.Katerine, Margarete, Juliene, Hali MeidhadandSawles Warde, butalso Ancrene Wisseand some other texts). Bodley 34 Ms: South West Midlands,early 13th century. Titus Ms: slightly more northern and eastern than Bodley.Edition: d’Ardenne (1977); Einenkel (1884); Furnivall (1866); Thompson (1958);Colborn (1940). Facsimile: Ker (1960). The Bodley is cited from d’Ardenne, and theTitus from Furnivall.

Layamon’sBrut. Two Manuscripts: Caligula and Otho, now both said to be from thesecond half of the 13th Century, North Worcestershire. Edition: Brook and Leslie(1963). Translation of Caligula: Allen (1992) and Barron & Weinberg (1995). Citedby line numbers.

Middle English Works used

Gawain and the Green Knight, St. Erkenwald, Pearl, Cleanness, andPatience. Assumed tobe by the ‘Gawain Poet’. NW Midlands; mid 14th century. Editions: Andrew &Waldron (1978); Gardner (1965); Savage (1926). Concordance by Kottler &Markham (1966). Cited by text and line.

Cursor Mundi. Various Manuscripts, from the early 14th century: Cotton and Göttingenare northern; Fairfax and Trinity are more southern. Edition: Morris (1874–1893).Cited by line.

The York Plays. Northern, late 15th century. Edition: Beadle (1982). Concordance:Kinneavy (1986). Cited by play and line.

Chaucer’s works. Southern, late 14th century. Edition: Benson (1987). Cited by work and line.

Main Early Modern Works used

The Paston Letters. Norfolk, 15th century. Edition: Davis (1971). Cited by letter and year.Shakespeare. Late 16th/early 17th century. First Folio edition from 1623 used. Edition:

Kökeritz (1954). Cited by play, act, scene and, on occasion, line.

References

Abbott, E. A. 1872.A Shakespearean Grammar. London: MacMillan & Co.Abney, Steve. 1987.The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. MIT PhD.Abraham, Werner. 1993. “Null Subjects in the History of German: from IP to CP”.

Lingua89: 117–142.———. 1995.Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.———. 1996. “Morphological Case: no need for functional projections in German”. In:

R. Jonkers et al. (eds),Language and Cognition 5, 1–12. University of Groningen.Adams, Marianne. 1987. “From Old French to the Theory of Pro-drop”.Natural Lan-

guage and Linguistic Theory5: 1–32.Akmajian, Adrian, Susan Steele & Tom Wasow. 1979. “The Category of in

Universal Grammar”.Linguistic Inquiry10.1: 1–64.Allen, Cynthia. 1986. “Reconsidering the history oflike”. Journal of Linguistics22:

375–409.———. 1995.Case Marking and Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Allen, J. & J. Greenough. 1888 [1931].New Latin Grammar. Boston: Ginn and Company.Allen, Rosamund. 1992.Lawman: Brut. London: J. M. Dent.Anagnostopoulou, Eleni & Martin Everaert. 1997. “Towards a More Complete Typology

of Anaphoric Expressions”, unpublished ms.Anderson, Gregory. 1999. “Split-Inflection in Auxiliary Verb Constructions”, talk,

WECOL 1999.Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (ANS). 1984. G. Geerts et al. (eds). Groningen:

Wolters Noordhoff.Andrew, Malcolm & Ronald Waldron. 1978 [1987].The Poems of the Pearl Manuscript.

University of Exeter.d’Ardenne, S. 1977.The Katherine Group. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Authier, Marc & Lisa Reed. 1997. “On Some Split Binding Paradigms”.Natural Lan-

guage and Linguistic Theory15: 429–463.Avrutin, S. 1997. “On the Relationship between Case and Reference”, abstract LAGB.Baker, C. L. 1995. “Contrast, Discourse Prominence, and Intensification, with Special

Reference to Locally Free reflexives in British English”.Language71.1: 63–101.Baker, Mark. 1988.Incorporation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.———. 1996.The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

258 REFERENCES

Barron, W. & S. Weinberg. 1989.Layamon’s ‘Arthur’.Harlow: Longman.———. 1995.Layamon’s Brut. Harlow: Longman.Bately, Janet (ed.). 1980.The Old English Orosius. Oxford: Oxford University Press

[EETS S. S. 6].Baugh, Albert & Thomas Cable. 1993.A History of the English Language. 4th edition.

London: RKP.Bayer, Joseph & Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1990. “Restructuring Effects in German”. In: Elizabeth

Engdahl et al. (eds),Parametric Variation in Germanic and Romance. Edinburgh:Centre for Cognitive Science.

Beadle, Richard (ed.). 1982.The York Plays. London: Edward Arnold.Beckman, E. 1878. “Über das reflexive Verb im Englischen”.Archiv für das Studium

neueren Sprachen und Literaturen59: 204–215.Beekes, Robert. 1990.Vergelijkende Taalwetenschap. Utrecht: Aula.Bejar, Susana. 1999. “Genitive, Plural and the loss of definite adjectival inflection in

English”, ICHL talk.Belletti, Adriana. 1988. “The Case of Unaccusatives”.Linguistic Inquiry19.1: 1–34.———. & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. “Psych-verbs andθ-Theory”. Natural Language and

Linguistic Theory6: 291–352.Benson, Larry. 1987.The Riverside Chaucer. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Benveniste, Emile. 1966.Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Berndt, Rolf. 1956.Form und Funktion des Verbums im nördlichen Spätaltenglischen.

Halle: Max Niemeyer.Bessinger, Jess & Philip Smith. 1969.A Concordance to Beowulf. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press.———. 1978. A Concordance to the Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press.Besten, Hans den. 1983. “On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical

Deletive Rules”. In: Werner Abraham (ed.),On the Formal Syntax of the West-germania, 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bjork, Robert & Anita Obermeier. 1997. “Date, Provenance, Author, Audiences”. In:Robert Bjork & John Niles (eds),A Beowulf Handbook, 13–34. Lincoln: Universityof Nebraska Press.

Blake, N. F. 1988. “Negation in Shakespeare”. In: Graham Nixon & John Honey,AnHistoric Tongue, 89–111. London: Routledge.

Bobaljik, Jonathan & Diane Jonas. 1996. “Subject Positions and the Roles of TP”.Linguistic Inquiry27.2: 195–236.

Bock, Karl. 1887.Die Syntax der Pronomina und Numeralia in König Alfreds Orosius.Göttingen.

Borer, Hagit. 1989. “Anaphoric Agr”. In: Osvaldo Jaeggli & Ken Safir (eds),The NullSubject Parameter, 69–109. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Börjars, Kersti & Carol Chapman. 1998. “Agreement and pro-drop in some dialects ofEnglish”. Linguistics36: 71–98.

REFERENCES 259

Bosworth, Joseph & T. Northcote Toller. 1898.An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Bradley, S. 1982.Anglo-Saxon Poetry. London: Dent.Brinton, Laurel. 1995. “Non-anaphoric reflexives in free indirect style: expressing the

subjectivity of the non-speaker”. In: Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds),Subjectivityand Subjectivization, 173–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bøgholm, N. 1944.The Layamon Texts. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Böhnke, Max. 1906.Die Flexion des Verbums in LaŠamons Brut. Berlin dissertation.Brook, G. & R. Leslie (eds). 1963.Layamon: Brut. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

EETS 250.Bruce, J. 1894. “The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Book of Psalms commonly known as

The Paris Psalter”.PMLA IX: 43–164.Bungenstab, Edith. 1933.Der Genitiv beim Verbum und sein Ersatz im Laufe der englisch-

en Sprachgeschichte. Breslau dissertation.Burzio, Luigi. 1991. “The Morphological Basis of Anaphora”.Journal of Linguistics27:

81–105.———. 1996. “The Role of the Antecedent in Anaphoric Relations”. In: Robert Freidin

(ed.),Current Issues in Generative Grammar, 1–45. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Butler, Milton. 1980.Grammatically Motivated Subjects in Early English. University of

Texas, Austin PhD.Callaway, Morgan. 1913.The Infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. Washington, DC: Carnegie

Institution.Campbell, Alistair. 1959.Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Cantrall, W. 1974.Viewpoint, Reflexives, and the Nature of Noun Phrases. Den Haag:

Mouton.Cardinaletti, Anna & Michael Starke. 1996. “Deficient Pronouns: a View from German-

ic”. In: Höskuldur Thráinsson et al. (eds),Studies in Comparative Syntax II, 21–65.Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Chomsky, Noam. 1973. “Conditions on Transformations”. In: Stephen Anderson & PaulKiparsky (eds),Festschrift for Morris Halle, reprinted in Essays on Form andInterpretation. New York: North Holland.

———. 1977. “On Wh-movement”. In: Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow & AdrianAkmajian (eds),Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.

———. 1981.Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.———. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and

Binding. Cambridge: MIT Press.———. 1986a.Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.———. 1986b.Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.———. 1989. “Some Notes on Economy and Derivation”.MIT Working Papers in

Linguistics 10; also appears as Chapter 2 in Chomsky (1995).———. 1992. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory”.MIT Occasional Papers in

Linguistics 1; also appear as Chapter 3 in Chomsky (1995).———. 1994. “Bare Phrase Structure”.MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5.

260 REFERENCES

———. 1995. “Categories and Transformations”, Chapter 4 inThe Minimalist Program.Cambridge: MIT Press.

———. 1998a.Nuestro Conocimiento del Lenguaje Humano, Edición bilingüe. Santiagode Chile: Impresos Universitaria.

———. 1998b. “Some Observations on Economy in Generative Grammar”. In: PilarBarbosa, Danny Fox et al. (eds),Is the Best Good Enough?, 115–127. Cambridge:MIT Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1996. “Towards a Universal Hierarchy of Functional Heads (andSpecifiers)”, talk University of Groningen, June 1996.

Clark Hall, J. R. 1894 [1960].A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Toronto: University ofToronto Press, reprint.

Colborn, A. 1940.Hali Meidhad. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Curme, George. 1910. “The origin and growth of the adjective declension in Germanic”.

Journal of English and Germanic Philology9: 439–482.Davis, Norman. 1971.Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, Part I. Oxford:

Clarendon.Denison, David. 1985. “Why Old English had no prepositional passive”.English Studies

66.3: 189–204.———. 1993.English Historical Syntax. London: Longman.Diehn, Otto. 1901.Die Pronomina im Frühmittelenglischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Dixon, Robert. 1994.Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP.Dobbie, E. 1953.Beowulf and Judith. New York: Columbia University Press.Driem, George van. 1987.A Grammar of Limbu. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Edwards, V. & Weltens, B. 1984. “Research on Non-standard dialects of British English”.

In: Wolfgang Viereck (ed.),Focus on England and Wales, 97–139. Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Eble, Connie. 1970.Noun Inflection in Royal C XII, Ælfric’s First Series of CatholicHomilies. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill dissertation.

Eggenberger, Jakob. 1961.Das Subjektspronomen im Althochdeutschen. DissertationZürich.

Einenkel, Eugen (ed.). 1884.The Life of Saint Katherine, EETS 80.———. 1916.Geschichte der englischen Sprache II(3rd edition). Strassburg: Trübner.Everaert, Martin. 1986.The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.Faltz, Leonard. 1985.Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland.- 1989. “A Role for Inference in Meaning Change”.Studies in Language13–2:

317–331.Farr, James. 1905.Intensives and Reflexives in Anglo-Saxon and Early Middle English.

Baltimore: J. H. Furst.Finck, N. 1907. “Der angeblich passivische Charakter des transitiven Verbs”,Zeitschrift

für vergleichende Sprachforschung41: 209–282.Finkenstaedt, Th. 1963.You und Thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen. Berlin: de

Gruyter.

REFERENCES 261

Fischer, Olga & Frederike van der Leek. 1983. “The Demise of the Old English Imper-sonal Construction”.Journal of Linguistics19: 337–68.

Forchheimer, P. 1953.The Category of Person in Language. Berlin.Franz, W. 1909.Shakespeare Grammatik, 2. Auflage. Heidelberg: Carl Winters.Frary, L. 1929.Studies in the Syntax of the O.E. Passive. Baltimore.Freeze, Ray. 1992. “Existentials and other Locatives”.Language68: 553–95.Funke, Otto. 1907.Kasus-Syntax bei Orrm und Layamon. Vienna.Furnivall, F. J. (ed.),Hali Meidenhad, EETS 18, 1922 edition of 1866.Gaaf, W. van der. 1904.The Transition from the Impersonal to the Personal Construction

in Middle English. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Gardiner, Alan. 1927 [1957].Egyptian Grammar. Oxford: Griffith Institute.Gardner, J. 1965.The Complete Works of the Gawain Poet. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Gelderen, Elly van. 1993.The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benja-

mins.———. 1996a. “The Emphatic Origin of Reflexives”.Proceedings of the 22nd Annual

Meeting of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 106–115.———. 1996b. “Case to the Object in the History of English”.Linguistic Analysis26:

117–133.———. 1997. Verbal Agreement and the Grammar of its ‘Breakdown’.Tübingen:

Niemeyer.———. 1999. “Bound pronouns and local anaphors”. In: Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci

Curl (eds),Reflexives: Forms and Functions, 187–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.———. 2000. “The Reanalysis of SpecIP”, Grammatical Relations Symposium, Amster-

dam.Gericke, B. & W. Greul. 1934.Das Personalpronomen der 3.Person in spätags. und

frühmittelenglischen Texten. Leipzig: Mayer & Müller.Givon, Talmy. 1983. “Topic Continuity in Discourse”. In: John Haiman & Pamela Munro

(eds),Switch Reference and Universal Grammar, 51–82. Amsterdam: John Benja-mins.

Godden, Malcolm (ed.). 1979.Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, the second series. London:Oxford University Press. [EETS SS 5].

Gonda, Jan. 1975. “Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch der Pronomina der 1. und 2. Person alsSubjekt im Altindischen”.Selected Studies. Leiden: Brill.

Greenberg, Joseph. 1986. “Some Reflections on Pronominal Systems”. In: U. Wiesemann(ed.),Pronominal Systems, xvii-xxi. Tübingen: Narr.

Griffith, Mark (ed.). 1997.Judith. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.Haider, Hubert. 1985. “The Case of German”. In: Jindrich Toman (ed.),Studies in

German Grammar, 65–101. Dordrecht: Foris.———. 1990. “Null Subjects and Expletives in Romance and Germanic Languages”. In:

Werner Abraham, Wim Kosmeijer and Eric Reuland (eds),Issues in GermanicSyntax, 49–66. Berlin: Mouton.

262 REFERENCES

———. 1998. “All Germanic Sentence Structures are Equal but Some are more Equalthan Others”, GLAC talk.

Haiman, John. 1995. “Grammatical Signs of the Divided Self”. In: Werner Abraham,Talmy Givón, Sandra Thompson (eds),Discourse Grammar and Typology. Amster-dam: John Benjamins.

Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology”. In: Ken Hale & SamuelKeyser (eds),The View from building 20, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hamel, A. van. 1931.Gotisch Handboek. Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink & Zoon.Henry, Alison. 1995.Belfast English and Standard English. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Hermodsson, L. 1952.Reflexive und Intransitive verba. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Herold, P. C. 1968.The Morphology of King Alfred’s Translation of the ‘Orosius’.Den

Haag: Mouton.Hoekstra, Eric & Caroline Smits. 1998. “Everything you always wanted to know about

complementizer agreement”. In: Elly van Gelderen and Vida Samiian,WECOL 10Proceedings, 189–200.

Holmqvist, Erik. 1922.On the history of the English Present Inflections particularly-thand -s. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s.

Holt, R. 1878.The Ormulum with the Notes and Glossary of Dr. R.M. White, 2 Volumes.Oxford: Clarendon.

Hopper, Paul. 1975.The Syntax of the Simple Sentence in Proto-Germanic. Den Haag:Mouton.

Huang, James. 1984. “On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns”.LinguisticInquiry 15: 554–561.

Hulk, Aafke & Ans van Kemenade. 1995. “Verb Second, Pro-drop, Functional Projectionsand Language Change”. In: Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts (eds),Clause Structureand Language Change, 227–256. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hupe, H. 1893. “On the Filiation and the Text of the mss of the Middle English PoemCursor Mundi”, in Morris, Richard (ed.), Part 7.

Iatridou, Sabine & David Embick. 1997. “Apropospro”. Language73.1: 58–78.Jack, G. 1991. “The Language of the Early Middle English Texts in Royal 17A. xxvii”.

Studia Neophilologica63: 129–142.Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Ken Safir. 1989. “The Null Subject Parameter and Parametric

Theory”. In: Osvaldo Jaeggli & Ken Safir (eds),The Null Subject Parameter, 1–44.Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1983. “Case and Configurationality”.Coyote Papers4: 73–108.Jelinek, Eloise & Mary Willie. 1996. “‘Psych’ Verbs in Navajo”. In: Eloise Jelinek et al.

(eds), Athabaskan Language Studies, 15–34. Albuquerque: University of NewMexico Press.

Jespersen, Otto. 1894.Progress in Language. London: Allen & Unwin.———. 1938 [1972].Growth and Structure of the English Language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ninth edition, reprint.———. 1942.Modern English GrammarVI. London: Allen & Unwin Ltd.

REFERENCES 263

Jong, Jelly-Julia de. 1996.The Case of Bound Pronouns in Peripheral Romance. Gronin-gen dissertation.

Kayne, Richard. 1989. “Facets of Romance Past Participle Agreement”. In: Paola Benincà(ed.),Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.

———. 1991. “Agreement and Verb Morphology in Three Varieties of English”, talk,Stuttgart Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax.

———. 1993. “Towards a modular theory of auxiliary selection”.Studia Linguistica47.1:3–31.

———. 1994.The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.———. 1998. “Person Morphemes and Reflexives in Italian, French, and Related

Languages”, NYU ms.Keenan, Ed. 1994. “Creating Anaphors: an Historical Study of the English Reflexive

Pronouns”, UCLA ms.Kellner, Leon. 1905.Historical Outlines of English Syntax. London: MacMillan.Kemenade, Ans van. 1987.Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of

English. Dordrecht: Foris.Kennedy, A. 1915.The Pronoun of Address in English Literature of the Thirteenth Century.

Stanford: Stanford University.Ker, Neal. 1940. “An Eleventh-Century Old English Legend of the Cross before Christ”.

Medium Ævum9: 84–5.———. 1960.Facsimile of Ms. Bodley 34. London: Oxford University Press.Kinneavy, Gerald. 1986.A Concordance to ‘The York Plays’.New York: Garland.Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. “Indo-European Origins of Germanic Syntax”. In: Adrian Battye

and Ian Roberts (eds),Clause Structure and Language Change, 140–169. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

———. 1997. “The Rise of Positional Licensing in Germanic”. In: Ans van Kemenadeand & Nigel Vincent (eds),Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 460–494.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klaeber, F. (ed.). 1922.Beowulf. Boston: D.C. Heath [1950 edition].Klegraf, J., W. Kühlwein, D. Nehls & R. Zimmermann. 1976.Beowulf. 1. Teil: Text,

Übersetzung, usw. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Kökeritz, Helge (ed.). 1954.Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories & Tragedies:

A Facsimile Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press.König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 1999. “Intensifiers and Reflexives”. In: Zygmunt

Frajzyngier & Traci Curl (eds),Reflexives: Forms and Functions, 41–74. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

———. 1998. “The Development of Complex Reflexives and Intensifiers in English”,Berlin ms.

Koopman, Hilda & Dominique Sportiche. 1991. “The Position of Subjects”.Lingua 85:211–258.

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1991. “A Case for Emerging Functional Categories”. In: Susan Rothstein(ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, 11–35. New York:Academic Press.

264 REFERENCES

Koster, Jan. 1993/1994. “Towards a New Theory of Anaphoric Binding”. In: Barbara Lustet al. (eds),Syntactic Theory and First Language AcquisitionII. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.

———. & Eric Reuland (eds). 1991.Long-Distance Anaphora. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kottler, B. & A. Markman. 1966.A Concordance to Five Middle English Poems. Pitts-burgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Krapp, G. P. 1931.The Junius Manuscript. New York: Columbia University Press.———. 1932. The Paris Psalter and the Meters of Boethius. New York: Columbia

University Press.Krapp, G. P. & Kirk Dobbie, E. V. (eds). 1936.The Exeter Book. New York: Columbia

University Press.Kuhn, Sherman (ed.). 1965.The Vespasian Psalter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press.Kytö, Merja & Matti Rissanen. 1988. “The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts”. In: Ossi

Ihalainen et al. (eds),Corpus Linguistics: Hard and Soft, 169–79. Amsterdam:Rodopi.

Linguistic Atlas of Late Middle English. 1987. Angus McIntosh (ed.). Aberdeen: AberdeenUniversity Press.

Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1992.Move [�] . Cambridge: MIT Press.Lehmann, Winfred. 1993.Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London:

Routledge.Lehnert, Martin. 1953.Sprachform unde Sprachfunktion im Ormmulum. Berlin: Deutscher

Verlag der Wissenschaften.Lenerz, Jürgen. 1985. “Diachronic Syntax: Verb Position and Comp in German”. In:

Jindrich Toman (ed.),Studies in German Grammar, 103–132. Dordrecht: Foris.Lightfoot, David. 1979.Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.———. 1991.How to set parameters. Cambridge: MIT Press.———. 1995. “Why UG needs a Learning Theory”. In: Adrian Battye and Ian Roberts,

Clause Structure and Language Change, 31–52. New York — Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Logan, H. M. 1973.The Dialect of the Life of Saint Katherine. The Hague: Mouton.López-Couso, Maria. 1996. “On the history ofmethinks: From impersonal construction to

fossilized expression”.Folia Linguistica Historica17.1–2: 153–169.Los, Bettelou. 2000.Infinitival Complementation in Old and Middle English. Den Haag:

Thesus.Lyons, John. 1967. “A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences”.Founda-

tions of Language3: 390–6.Mackie, William (ed.). 1934.The Exeter Book, Part II. London: Oxford University Press.Mahajan, Anoop. 1990.The A/A Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. MIT PhD.———. 1994/1997. “Universal Grammar and the Typology of Ergative Languages”. In:

Artemis Alexiadou & Tracy Hall (eds),Universal Grammar and TypologicalVariation, 35–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

REFERENCES 265

McCawley, Noriko. 1976. “From OE/ME ‘Impersonal’ to ‘Personal’ Constructions: Whatis a ‘subject-less’ S?”. In: Sanford Steever, et al. (eds),Papers on the Parasession onDiachronic Syntax, 192–204. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

McIntosh, Angus. 1989. “Present Indicative Plural Forms in the Later Middle English ofthe North Midlands”. In: Margaret Laing (ed.),Middle EnglishDialectology, 116–22.Aberdeen University Press.

Millet, Bella (ed.). 1982.Hali Meiðhad. London: Oxford University Press.Mitchell, Bruce. 1979. “Old EnglishSelf”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen80: 39–45.———. 1985.Old English GrammarI and II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.———. & Fred Robinson. 1964 [1986].A Guide to Old English. Oxford: Blackwell.Morris, Richard (ed.). 1874–1893.Cursor Mundi, 7 Parts. Trübner & Co.Mossé, Fernand. 1962.Manuel de l’anglais du Moyen AgeII. Paris: Aubier.Mustanoja, Tauno. 1960.A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki.Napier, Arthur (ed.). 1894.History of the Holy Rood-tree. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,

Trübner & Co.Nichols, Lynn. 1997.Topics in Zuni Syntax. MIT PhD.Öfverberg, William. 1924.The Inflections of the East Midland Dialects in Early Middle

English. Lund dissertation.Ogura, Michiko. 1989.Verbs with the Reflexive Pronoun and Constructions withSelf in

Old and Early Middle English. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Ohlander, Urban. 1943. “Omission of the Object in English”.Studia Neophilologica16:

105–127.Oxford English Dictionary (OED). 1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Peitsara, Kirsti. 1997. “The development of reflexive strategies in English”. In: Matti

Rissanen, Merja Kytö, and Kirsti Heikkonen (eds),Grammaticalization at work,277–370. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Penning, Gerhard. 1875.A History of the Reflexive Pronouns in the English Language.Bremen.

Pesetsky, David. 1995.Zero Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1987. “The theory of empty categories and the pro-drop

parameter in Modern Greek”.Journal of Linguistics23: 289–318.Philippi, Julia. 1997. “The rise of the article in the Germanic Languages”. In: Ans van

Kemenade and Nigel Vincent (eds),Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 62–93.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pintzuk, Susan. 1991.Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in OldEnglish Word Order. University of Pennsylvania PhD.

Platzack, Christer. 1995a. “Null Subjects, Weak Agr and Syntactic Differences inScandinavian”. In: Höskuldur Thráinsson, David Epstein & S. Peter (eds),Studies inComparative Germanic Syntax II, 180–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

———. 1995b. “The Loss of Verb-second in English and French”. In: Adrian Battye andIan Roberts (eds),Clause Structure and Language Change, 200–226. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

266 REFERENCES

———. & Anders Holmberg. 1989. “The Role of Agr and Finiteness”.Working Papersin Scandinavian Syntax43: 51–76.

Pogatscher, Alois. 1901. “Unausgedrücktes Subject im Altenglischen”.Anglia 23:261–301.

Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. “Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP”.LinguisticInquiry 20: 365–424.

Pope, John. 1967–8.Homilies ofÆlfric: A Supplementary Collection, Vol 1 and 2. Oxford:Oxford University Press. [EETS 259 and 260]

Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998. “Determiner phrase in a language without determiners”.Journalof Linguistics34: 165–179.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985.A Compre-hensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.

Quirk, Randolph & C. Wrenn. 1957.An Old English Grammar. Second Edition, 1977reprint. London: Methuen.

Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1993. “Reflexivity”.Linguistic Inquiry24.4: 657–720.Reuland, Eric & Wim Kosmeijer. 1988. “Projecting Inflected Verbs”.Groninger Arbeiten

zur germanistischen Linguistik29.Reuland, Eric & Tanya Reinhart. 1995. “Pronouns, Anaphors and Case”. In: Hubert

Haider, Susan Olsen & Sten Vikner (eds),Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax,241–268. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Rice, Keren & Leslie Saxon. 1995. “The Subject Positions in Athapaskan Languages”,unpublished ms.

Ritter, Elizabeth. 1995. “On the syntactic category of pronouns and agreement”.NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory13: 405–43.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. “Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro”.Linguistic Inquiry17:501–57.

———. 1990. “On the Anaphor Agreement Effect”. Rivista di Linguistica2: 27–42.Roberts, Ian. 1993.Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.———. 1996.”Directionality and Word Order Change in the History of English”.

University of Wales Ms.Ropers, Karl. 1918.Zur Syntax und Stilistik des Pronominalgebrauchs bei Ælfric. Kiel:

Schmidt & Klaunig.Rose, Marilyn. 1976.The Syntax of the Reflexive Pronoun in Gothic and Old Norse.

University of Wisconsin-Madison, PhD.Safir, Ken. 1985.Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: CUP.Savage, H. 1926.St. Erkenwald. New Haven: Yale University Press.Schrader, Bernard. 1887.Studien zur Ælfricschen Syntax. Jena dissertation.Sedgefield, W. 1899.King Alfred’s Old English Version of Boethius. Oxford: Clarendon.Seefranz-Montag, A. von. 1983.Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellungsveränderung.

München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Sievers, Eduard. 1942.Altenglische Grammatik nach der Angelsächsischen Grammatik,

neubearbeitet von Karl Brunner. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Sigurðsson, Halldor. 1993. “Argument-drop in Old Icelandic”.Lingua89: 247–280.

REFERENCES 267

Silverstein, Michael. 1976 [1986]. “Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity”. In: PieterMuysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds),Features and Projections, 163–232. Dor-drecht: Foris.

Skeat, Walter (ed.). 1881–7.The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke andSt. John. Cambridge. Reprint: Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Smet, J. de. 1970. “Het Subjectspronomen in de Oudnederfrankische Psalmfragmenten”.Studia Germanica Gandensia12: 145–158.

Smithers, G. 1987.Havelok. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Solá, Jaume. 1996. “Morphology and Word Order in Germanic Languages”. In: Werner

Abraham et al. (eds),Minimal Ideas, 217–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Spamer, James. 1979. “The development of the definite article in English”.Glossa13.2:

241–250.Spies, Heinrich. 1897.Studien zur Geschichte des englischen Pronomens im XV. und XVI.

Jahrhundert. Halle: Niemeyer.Swane, Wilhelm. 1904.Studien zur Kasussyntax des Frühmittelenglischen. Kiel disserta-

tion.Sweet, Henry. 1871 [1934].King Alfred’s West-Saxon Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care.

London: Oxford University Press.———. 1885.An Anglo-Saxon Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [fifth edition]Taraldsen, Tarald. 1978. “On the NIC, Vacuous Application and theThat-trace Filter”,

ms.———. 1996. “Reflexives, Pronouns and Subject/Verb Agreement in Icelandic and

Faroese”. In: James Black & Virginia Motapanyane (eds),Microparametric Syntaxand Dialect Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Taylor, Estelle. 1972. “Shakespeare’s use ofs endings of the verbsto do and to haveinthe First Folio”.CLA Journal16: 214–231.

———. 1976. “Shakespeare’s use ofethandesendings of verbs in the First Folio”.CLAJournal19.4: 437–457.

Thompson, W. Meredith. 1958.Þe Wohunge of ure Lauerd. London: OUP.Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1996. “On the (Non)-Universality of Functional Categories”. In:

Werner Abraham et al. (eds),Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the MinimalistFramework, 253–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Traugott, Elizabeth. 1972.A History of English Syntax. New York: HRW.———. 1992. “Syntax”. In: Richard Hogg,The Cambridge History of the English

Language, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Trudgill, Peter. 1997. “Third-person singular zero: African-American English, East

Anglian Dialects and Spanish Persecution in the Low Countries”.Folia LinguisticaHistorica 18.1/2: 139–148.

Ura, Hiroyuki. 1994.Varieties of Raising and the Feature-based Bare Phrase StructureTheory. MIT Occasional Working papers in Linguistics 7.

Vaillant, A. 1936. “L’ergatif Indo-Européen”.Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique deParis 37: 93–108.

268 REFERENCES

Visser, F. 1963–1973.An Historical Syntax of the English Grammar, Vol I-IIIb. Leiden:Brill.

Wal, Marijke van der. 1994.Geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Utrecht: Aula.Wales, Katie. 1996.Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Wasow, Thomas. 1977. “Transformations and the Lexicon”. In: Peter Culicover, Thomas

Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds),Formal Syntax, 327–360. New York: AcademicPress.

Weinreich, Uriel. 1949 [1965].College Yiddish. New York: YIVO Institute. [4th edition].Wexler, Ken & Rita Manzini. 1987. “Parameters and Learnability in Binding Theory”. In:

Tom Roeper & Edwin Williams (eds),Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.Williams, Edwin. 1981. “Argument Structure and Morphology”.The Linguistic Review1:

81–114.Woolford, Ellen. 1999. “More on the Anaphor Agreement Effect”. Linguistic Inquiry

30.2: 257–287.Wülfing, E. 1894–1901.Die Syntax in den Werken Alfreds des GrossenI and II. Bonn:

Hanstein.Wyld, Henry. 1907.Historical Study of the Mother Tongue. London: John Murray.Zamparelli, Roberto. 1995.Layers in theDeterminer Phrase. University of Rochester PhD.Zeitlin, Jacob. 1908.The ACI and Some Kindred Constructions in English. Columbia PhD.Zepeda, Ofelia. 1983 [1994].A Papago Grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Zeuner, Rudolph. 1882.Die Sprache des Kentischen Psalters. Halle: Niemeyer.Zieglschmid, F. 1929.Zur Entwicklung der Perfektumschreibung imDeutschen. Baltimore:

Waverly Press.Zupitza, Julius. 1959.Beowulf, reproduced in facsimile. 2nd edition. EETS 245.Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997.Morphosyntax of Verb Movement. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Name Index

AAbbott, E. A. 222, 257Abney, S. 22, 257Abraham, Werner x, 125, 153, 181,

183, 257, 258, 261, 262, 267Adams, Marianne 125, 257Akmajian, A. 182, 257, 259, 268Allen, C. 211, 212, 215, 216, 227, 229,

233, 245, 257Allen, J. 225, 257Allen, R. 256, 257Anagnostopoulou, E. 104, 257Anderson, G. 9, 257Anderson, S. 259d’Ardenne, S. 76, 139, 256, 257Authier, M. 18, 257Avrutin, S. 123, 257

BBaker, C. 14, 151, 252, 257Barron, W. 64, 256, 258Bately, J. 131, 258Baugh, A. 91, 258Bayer, J. 187, 258Beadle, R. 93, 256, 258Beckman, E. 28, 258Beekes, R. 22, 258Bejar, S. 23, 258Belletti, A. 11, 233, 244, 258Benson, L. 256, 258Benveniste, E. 98, 224, 258Berndt, R. 57, 132, 133, 159, 164, 166,

258

Besten, H. den 152, 258Bjork, R. 33, 56, 255, 258Blake, N. F. 191, 258Bobaljik, J. 151, 154, 156, 182, 183,

194, 258Bock, K. 50, 258Bøgholm, N. 242, 243, 259Böhnke, M. 173, 259Borer, H. 121, 258Bosworth, J. 209, 259Bradley, S. 44, 255, 259Brinton, L. 12, 259Brook, G. 67, 73, 171, 256, 259Bruce, J. 255, 259, 265Bungenstab, E. 216, 259Burzio, L. 12, 18, 19, 99, 217, 259Butler, M. 125, 259

CCallaway, M. 206, 218, 259Campbell, A. 21, 29, 57, 155, 156,

164, 209, 221, 255, 259Cantrall, W. 12, 259Cardinaletti, A. 97, 103, 259Chapman, C. 121, 258Chomsky, N. 1-5, 7-14, 17, 86, 114,

122-124, 151, 152, 154, 183, 193,194, 197, 198, 205, 253, 259

Cinque, G. 154, 260Clark Hall, J. R. 209, 224, 260Colborn, A. 256, 260Curme, G. 24, 260

270 NAME INDEX

DDavis, N. 256, 260Denison, D. 62, 218, 229, 260Diehn, O. 260Dixon, R. 223, 227, 260Driem, G. van 9, 260

EEble, C. 204, 260Edwards, V. 107, 193, 260Eggenberger, J. 136, 260Einenkel, E. 101, 146, 256, 260Embick, D. 123, 262Everaert, M. 98, 104, 110, 257, 260

FFaltz, L. x, 28, 260Farr, J. 27, 31, 32, 105, 260Finck, N. 223, 260Finkenstaedt, Th. 222, 260Fischer, O. x, 228, 245, 261Forchheimer, P. 199, 221, 261Franz, W. 179, 261Frary, L. 210, 261Freeze, R. 224, 261Funke, O. 207, 213, 261

GGaaf, W. van der 217, 228, 261Gardiner, Alan 2, 223, 261Gardner, J. 79, 256, 261Gelderen, E. van 1, 11, 19, 64, 95, 96,

126, 151, 154, 182-184, 186, 187,206, 218, 234, 261, 262

Gericke, B. 21, 261Givon, T. 96, 261, 262Godden, M. 255, 261Gonda, J. 136, 261Greenbaum, S. 266Greenberg, J. 96, 261Greenough, J. 225, 257Greul, W. 21, 261Griffith, M. 129, 261

HHaider, H. 126, 183, 187, 198, 261,

266Haiman, J. 14, 261, 262Halle, M. 4, 258, 259, 262, 267, 268Hamel, A. van 156, 225, 262Henry, A. 9, 262Hermodsson, L. 2, 28, 35, 262Herold, P. C. 160, 262Hoekstra, E. 153, 262Holmqvist, E. 159, 167, 168, 178, 262Holt, R. 217, 262Hopper, P. 29, 262Huang, J. 123, 124, 262Hulk, A. 125, 126, 262Hupe, H. 92, 262

IIatridou, S. 123, 262

JJack, G. 76, 262Jaeggli, O. 122, 258, 262Jelinek, E. x, 121, 262Jespersen, O. 153, 156, 164, 167, 170,

179, 228, 262Jonas, D. 151, 154, 156, 182, 183, 194,

258Jong, J. de 14, 263

KKayne, R. 95, 99, 113, 220, 224, 245,

263Keenan, E. x, 27, 32, 42, 51, 52, 74,

78, 89, 103, 105, 110, 112, 263Kellner, L. 118, 222, 263Kemenade, A. van 20, 99, 125, 126,

180, 182, 185, 205, 206, 211, 262,263, 265

Kennedy, A. 117, 263Ker, N. 64, 77, 256, 263Kinneavy, G. 25, 93, 256, 263

NAME INDEX 271

Kiparsky, P. 181-183, 185, 186, 259,263

Klaeber, F. 33, 35, 38, 200, 209, 236,255, 263

Klegraf, J. 255, 263Kökeritz, H. 256, 263König, E. 14, 27, 33, 258, 263Koopman, H. 183, 263Kornfilt, J. 23, 187, 258, 263Kosmeijer, W. 187, 261, 266Koster, J. 2, 12, 17, 18, 62, 86, 95, 97,

264Kottler, B. 79, 83, 256, 264Krapp, G. P. 43, 49, 255, 264Kühlwein, W. 255, 263Kuhn, S. M. 202, 255, 264Kytö, M. 24, 264, 265

LLasnik, H. 193, 264Leech, G. 266Lehmann, W. 22, 245, 264Lehnert, M. 213, 264Lenerz, J. 181, 264Leslie, R. 67, 73, 171, 256, 259Lightfoot, D. 189, 209, 210, 217, 228,

233, 264Logan, H. M. 76, 174, 213, 264López-Couso, M. 244, 264Los, B. 207, 264Lyons, J. 224, 264

MMackie, W. 49, 255, 264Mahajan, A. 11, 224, 244, 264Manzini, R. 13, 268Marantz, A. 4, 262Markman, A. 79, 83, 264McCawley, N. 228, 265McIntosh, A. 170, 264, 265Millet, B. 265Mitchell, B. 28, 30-32, 103, 205, 210,

212, 216, 265

Morris, R. 92, 146, 256, 259, 262, 265Mossé, F. 211, 265Mustanoja, T. 23, 28, 31, 66, 100, 103,

107, 124, 146, 209, 215, 216, 219,265

NNapier, A. 64, 76, 137, 170, 212, 215,

256, 265Nehls, D. 255, 263Nichols, L. 15, 265

OObermeier, A. 33, 56, 255, 258Öfverberg, W. 214, 265Ogura, M. 28, 265Ohlander, U. 148, 265

PPeitsara, K. 111, 265Penning, G. 103, 265Pesetsky, D. 223, 233, 265Philippaki-Warburton, I. 121, 265Philippi, J. 23, 265Pintzuk, S. 182, 186, 252, 265Platzack, C. 123, 125, 126, 151, 180,

265Pogatscher, A. 124, 128, 138, 234, 266Pope, J. 255, 266Progovac, L. 24, 266

QQuirk, R. 21, 29-31, 153, 155, 156,

164, 167, 266

RReed, L. 18, 257Reinhart, T. ix, 2, 12, 14-20, 27, 43,

62, 63, 86, 95, 96, 102, 109, 110,119, 221, 247, 253, 266

Reuland, E. ix, x, 2, 12, 14-20, 27, 43,62, 63, 86, 95, 96, 98, 102, 109,

272 NAME INDEX

110, 119, 187, 221, 247, 253, 261,264, 266

Rice, K. 19, 244, 266Rissanen, M. 24, 264, 265Ritter, E. 19, 23, 266Rizzi, L. 2, 96, 121, 123, 126, 148,

233, 258, 266Roberts, I. 151, 154, 180, 191, 262-266Robinson, F. 103, 265Ropers, K. 131, 266Rose, M. 28, 266

SSafir, K. 121-123, 151, 258, 262, 266Saito, M. 193, 264Savage, H. 256, 266Saxon, L. 19, 244, 266Schrader, B. 131, 266Sedgefield, W. 255, 266Seefranz-Montag, A. von 229, 266Siemund, P. 14, 27, 33, 263Sievers, E. 163, 164, 167, 266Sigurðsson, H. 124, 125, 266Silverstein, M. 227, 267Skeat, W. 57, 58, 60, 130, 133, 255,

267Smet, J. de 136, 267Smith, P. 34, 35, 200, 255, 258Smithers, G. 106, 267Smits, C. 153, 262Solá, J. 157, 267Spamer, J. 24, 267Spies, H. 106, 108, 267Sportiche, D. 183, 263Starke, M. 97, 103, 259Steele, S. 182, 257Svartvik, J. 266Swane, W. 211, 267Sweet, H. 126, 166, 255, 267

TTaraldsen, T. 99, 123, 125, 151, 267Taylor, E. 179, 180, 267

Thompson, W. 79, 256, 262, 267Thráinsson, H. 154, 259, 265, 267Toller, T. N. 209, 259Traugott, E. 20, 23, 99, 182, 267Trudgill, P. 178, 267

UUra, H. 123, 267

VVaillant, A. 223, 267Visser, F. 30, 36, 44-46, 50, 51, 106,

111, 115-119, 124-126, 128, 129,131, 134, 137, 146-148, 189, 191,205-207, 210, 214, 217, 268

WWal, M. van der 136, 268Waldron, R. 256, 257Wales, K. 222, 260, 266, 268Wasow, T. 182, 207, 209, 257, 259,

268Weinberg, S. 64, 256, 258Weinreich, U. 16, 268Weltens, B. 107, 260Wexler, K. 13, 268Williams, E. 207, 268Willie, M. 121, 262Woolford, E. 2, 96, 268Wrenn, C. 21, 29-31, 153, 155, 156,

164, 167, 266Wülfing, E. 51, 52, 54, 268Wyld, H. 170, 268

ZZamparelli, R. 23, 268Zeitlin, J. 206, 218, 268Zepeda, O. 9, 268Zeuner, R. 164, 165, 201, 268Zieglschmid, F. 268Zimmermann, R. 255, 263Zupitza, J. 33, 35, 255, 268Zwart 153, 268

Subject Index

θ-marking 95, 184, 206θ-related 3, 97, 197, 199, 211θ-roles 205, 215

AAB-dialect 215accusative Case xi, xiii, 50, 59, 61,

109, 204, 206, 207, 248, 249ACI 206, 207, 214, 218, 221, 268adjective vi, ix, 8, 16, 23, 24, 27,

29-31, 33, 43, 48, 52, 60, 62-64,66, 102-105, 109, 114, 207, 224,244, 260

adverbial 15, 131, 146, 178agent 209, 210, 223, 227, 229, 235AgrO 5, 7, 17, 95, 108, 197, 220AgrS 5, 7, 17, 152, 154, 180, 182, 195alliteration 29, 99, 100, 252analytic 1, 2, 12, 25, 26, 58, 151, 247,

252Anglian 160, 163, 267animate 207, 227article 24, 30, 31, 265, 267Athabascan 244auxiliary 2, 4, 8-10, 105, 182, 183,

191, 252, 257, 263

BBelfast English 9, 262

CC(omplementizer) 4, 99, 181

Caligula xi, 25, 64-75, 108, 136, 138,139, 148, 171-175, 185-188, 212,213, 215-220, 239-244, 256

causer 223, 229Chinese 168clitics 20, 99, 100, 185, 191, 219compound 30, 31, 56, 76, 79-81, 89,

102, 104, 107, 252Condition on A-chains 15contraction 165CP 4, 181, 184, 188, 191, 193, 194,

207, 257Cursor Mundi (CM) 146

DD(eterminer) 101dative Case xiii, 36, 198, 205, 210, 214definite 2, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 42, 43,

47, 48, 52, 55, 60, 66, 67, 79, 100,102, 104, 258, 267

demonstratives 30, 204dialect 21, 24, 28, 56, 61, 64, 76, 86,

91, 132, 170, 178, 215, 249, 255,263, 264, 267

direct object 35, 36, 44, 46, 48, 50, 60,63, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78, 80-82, 87,90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 102, 109, 110,250, 251

DP 23, 24, 32, 103, 104, 106, 248dual 21, 34, 35, 44, 45, 69, 70, 184,

199, 221Durham Ritual 132, 159

274 SUBJECT INDEX

Dutch 2, 14, 16, 20, 23, 29, 87, 97-99,102, 110, 114, 117, 119, 136, 152,153, 183, 189, 210, 247

EEarly Germanic 23economical 11emphatic 14, 27, 29, 31, 33, 38, 39, 46,

48, 50, 52-54, 57, 59-61, 64-70,72, 76, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 88,92-94, 107, 248, 249, 261

ending 21, 24, 31, 46, 67, 76-79, 83,90, 93, 106, 121, 135, 153, 155,156, 158-161, 163-167, 169-173,176-180, 188, 214

ethical dative 48, 89Exeter v, 24, 28, 43-46, 48, 50, 59,

115, 125, 126, 128, 134, 153, 157,159, 164, 165, 167, 169, 182, 201,204, 249, 255, 257, 261, 264

experiencer 207, 208, 223, 224, 229,233, 235, 244

expletive 11, 117, 122, 123, 125, 141,154, 182

FFinnish 121French 5, 8, 29, 98, 99, 113, 154, 252,

257, 263, 265

Ggender features 8, 32genitive Case 217German 14, 16, 17, 23, 28, 29, 62, 136,

152, 153, 164, 165, 181, 183, 198,210, 255, 257, 258, 261, 264

Germanic ix, 23, 28, 30, 103, 136, 163,164, 168, 181, 186, 258-263,265-267

goal 184, 198, 205, 215, 218Gorum 9Gothic 156, 163, 164, 225, 266governing category 13-15, 17, 86, 122

government 95, 98, 102, 123, 245, 248,259

grammaticalization 60, 63, 64, 67, 68,77, 79, 95, 102, 265

Greek 121, 181, 265

HHead–Head 5, 7Hebrew 121Helsinki Corpus 24, 105, 107, 111, 115,

139, 144, 148, 161, 164-166, 264Hindi 223, 225Holy Rood Tree 63, 64, 76, 105, 137,

170, 211, 215, 216, 218, 239, 250,256

Homilies 30, 31, 54-56, 115, 161, 162,166, 204, 255, 260, 261, 266

Hopi 184

IIcelandic 99, 154, 266, 267imperative 155, 156, 159, 161, 165,

187impersonal 81, 82, 123, 143, 210, 223,

224, 227-229, 233, 236-245, 261,264, 265

indefinite 2, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 42, 43,47, 48, 52, 54-56, 58, 60, 104

indirect object 51, 75, 93, 112, 212,250

Indo-European 18, 22, 28, 136, 263,264

infinitives 124, 125inflected 4, 30, 38, 43, 51, 107, 117,

157, 159, 171, 172, 174, 175, 191,266

inherent Case 11, 12, 15-18, 20, 25-27,43, 59, 62, 63, 72, 76, 95–97, 102,121, 123, 145, 149, 151, 169, 175,183, 184, 197–199, 205-208,210-214, 217, 218, 220-224, 228,235, 239, 244-246, 248-250

interlinear 57, 129, 130, 134, 255

SUBJECT INDEX 275

interpretability 7, 9, 96, 114, 119interpretable features 3, 8, 11, 17, 100,

109, 114, 119, 252, 253Inversion 178, 181inverted 159, 161, 164, 165, 167, 173,

185IP 4, 7, 8, 17, 186, 193, 206, 257, 266Italian 18, 19, 113, 121, 157, 263, 266

JJapanese 168

KKatherine Group 25, 76, 94, 137, 139,

145, 147, 149, 174, 213-215, 218,220, 221, 256, 257

Kentish 56, 91, 245Korean 13, 168

LLatin 57, 60, 129-131, 133-135, 168,

201-203, 225, 257LF xiv, 5, 7-12, 14, 17, 106, 117, 152,

183, 244, 253Limbu 9, 260Lindisfarne Gospels xiv, 21, 25, 28, 57,

132, 153, 158, 159, 164, 166, 249,255

location 223

MMercian 56-58, 60, 61, 129, 132-134,

158, 159, 163, 166-169, 201, 202,255

Middle Dutch 2, 247Midlands 64, 76, 91, 92, 94, 107, 170,

171, 176, 214, 250, 256, 265Minimalism 5minimalist ix, 3, 4, 17, 107, 123, 151,

183, 197, 199, 244, 252, 253, 259,260, 267

Mirror Principle 151

morphological vii, xiii, 1, 18, 20, 27,52, 62, 67, 68, 71, 77, 79, 92–95,99, 151, 183, 185, 197, 199,210-212, 221, 239, 243, 245,248-251, 257, 259, 263

movement 1, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 17, 24,103, 117, 122, 124, 151-157, 169,175, 178-191, 194, 195, 199, 211,217, 220, 248, 252, 259, 264, 266,268

NNavajo 184, 225, 262negation 99, 181, 258nominative Case 4, 5, 60, 106, 198,

207, 209, 223, 229northern 56-58, 60, 61, 64, 65, 76, 79,

91-94, 107, 130, 163, 166-168,170, 175-178, 201, 204, 214, 249,252, 256

Northumbrian 33, 56, 57, 61, 126, 130,133, 158, 159, 163, 164, 167, 202,255

null subject 122, 124, 125, 258, 262number features 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16,

25, 62, 119, 126, 147, 151, 152,174, 245, 247

Num(ber)P 6, 23

OO’odham 9, 184object agreement 9, 17object pro-drop 121, 147objective Case 108, 206, 208, 214oblique vi, xiv, 17, 63, 70, 71, 74, 75,

79, 80, 86, 87, 89, 95, 102,106–108, 110, 111, 119, 186, 205,249-251

Old Dutch 136Old Egyptian 2, 223, 247Old High German 136, 164, 165, 181Old Turkish 23

276 SUBJECT INDEX

Otho 25, 64-67, 71-73, 75, 106, 108,172-175, 185, 186, 212, 213, 215,216-220, 240-244, 256

OV 220

Pparticiple 8, 9, 93, 207, 209, 210, 263particle 187passive 8, 16, 182, 197, 198, 207-210,

214, 217, 221, 246, 250, 260, 261past participle 8, 9, 209, 263Paston Letters 25, 106, 110, 111, 178,

180, 184, 244, 251, 256, 260Penn-Helsinki Corpus 139, 144, 148Perf(ect)P 6person features ix, 8, 9, 16, 19, 25, 96,

97, 109, 111, 114, 117, 119, 121,135, 137, 147, 149, 157, 168, 169,197, 245, 248, 250, 251

person split 2, 12, 18, 19, 26, 43, 60,77-79, 90, 92, 99, 109, 114, 119,122, 125, 131, 132, 136, 152, 199,221, 223, 224, 227, 228, 235, 236,238, 239, 243-246, 253

PersonP 6phonologically reduced 63, 97possessive 105, 223, 224, 226, 228, 264prepositional object 14, 27, 32, 44, 46,

48, 50, 54, 56, 60, 70, 72, 74–76,79, 81, 84, 91, 93, 107, 108, 110,111, 248, 250

prosodic 97, 99pseudo-passive 16

Qquestion 7, 16, 181, 193, 252

RR-expression 13referential 2, 12, 13, 15-17, 43, 95, 97,

99, 109, 111, 113, 119-123, 125,126, 128, 145, 147, 175, 179, 180,194, 247, 251, 253

reflexive-marked 14, 110Romance 14, 168, 258, 261, 263Rushworth Glosses xiv, 25, 28, 57,

132, 153, 159, 166, 169, 249, 255Russian 123

SScandinavian 28, 265, 266self 2, 3, 14, 16, 19, 25, 27-33, 38-44,

46-95, 98, 102-114, 119, 126, 128,135, 145, 178, 179, 230, 248-252,262, 265

Shakespeare 25, 106, 111-113, 118,137, 147, 148, 179, 180, 185, 188,191, 195, 244, 251, 256, 258, 261,267

simple pronouns 25, 27, 29, 33, 38, 43,44, 48, 50, 56, 59, 64, 68, 70, 71,74, 75, 77, 82, 86, 91, 93, 95, 109,111-114, 119, 137, 145, 147, 149,178, 179, 197, 247-251

Slavic 17Southern 86, 91, 92, 132, 163, 170,

176, 178, 214, 256Spanish 8, 122, 123, 267Spec–Head 4, 5, 7, 183, 184Specified Subject Condition 13Spell-Out 5strong features 10, 11structural Case 3, 11, 12, 15, 17, 62,

95, 97, 107-110, 119, 123, 197,198, 207, 213, 217, 218, 220, 221,223, 244, 245, 251

SV 158, 162-164, 166, 171, 172, 174,175, 177, 183, 185, 189

Swedish 8, 9, 23synthetic 1, 12, 151, 247, 252

TTensed Sentence Condition 13theme 207, 223, 229, 248topic-drop 124-126, 128, 133, 139TP 154-156

SUBJECT INDEX 277

Uunderspecified 2, 43, 96, 97, 99, 117,

179, 194uninterpretable features 3, 8, 10, 11,

15-17, 96, 109, 113, 114, 120,151, 152, 179, 180, 223, 247, 252,253

universal 4, 257, 260, 261, 264Urdu 223, 225

VVenda 9Verb-movement 151-153, 156, 157,

178, 180, 182-188, 190, 191, 194,195, 248, 252

Vespasian Psalter 21, 24, 28, 60, 65,134, 153, 157, 158, 164–166, 168,201, 249, 255, 264

VO 220VoiceP 6VS 22, 69, 78, 93, 94, 132, 151, 158,

160-164, 166, 169-175, 177, 180,183, 185, 188, 189, 192, 249

WWest Saxon 28, 33, 56-58, 60-62, 76,

130, 133, 160, 164, 167, 203, 204,250, 255

word order 1, 2, 12, 158, 160, 163,166, 174-176, 180, 185, 219-221,265-267

Wyclif 207

XX′-theory 4

YYiddish 16, 25, 28, 99, 268York Plays 25, 64, 91, 93, 94, 176,

178, 214, 251, 252, 256, 258, 263

ZZuni 15, 265

In the series LINGUISTIK AKTUELL/LINGUISTICS TODAY (LA) the following titleshave been published thus far, or are scheduled for publication:

1. KLAPPENBACH, Ruth (1911-1977): Studien zur Modernen Deutschen Lexikographie.Auswahl aus den Lexikographischen Arbeiten von Ruth Klappenbach, erweitert um dreiBeiträge von Helene Malige-Klappenbach. 1980.

2. EHLICH, Konrad & Jochen REHBEIN: Augenkommunikation. Methodenreflexion undBeispielanalyse. 1982.

3. ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers fromthe 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgespräche), Groningen,January 1981. 1983.

4. ABRAHAM, Werner & Sjaak De MEIJ (eds): Topic, Focus and Configurationality.Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984. 1986.

5. GREWENDORF, Günther and Wolfgang STERNEFELD (eds): Scrambling and Barri-ers. 1990.

6. BHATT, Christa, Elisabeth LÖBEL and Claudia SCHMIDT (eds): Syntactic PhraseStructure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. 1989.

7. ÅFARLI, Tor A.: The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. 1992.8. FANSELOW, Gisbert (ed.): The Parametrization of Universal Grammar. 1993.9. GELDEREN, Elly van: The Rise of Functional Categories. 1993.10. CINQUE, Guglielmo and Guiliana GIUSTI (eds): Advances in Roumanian Linguistics.

1995.11. LUTZ, Uli and Jürgen PAFEL (eds): On Extraction and Extraposition in German. 1995.12. ABRAHAM, W., S. EPSTEIN, H. THRÁINSSON and C.J.W. ZWART (eds): Minimal

Ideas. Linguistic studies in the minimalist framework. 1996.13. ALEXIADOU Artemis and T. Alan HALL (eds): Studies on Universal Grammar and

Typological Variation. 1997.14. ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Elena, Henk VAN RIEMSDIJK and Frans ZWARTS (eds):

Materials on Left Dislocation. 1997.15. ROHRBACHER, Bernhard Wolfgang: Morphology-Driven Syntax. A theory of V to I

raising and pro-drop. 1999.16. LIU, FENG-HSI: Scope and Specificity. 1997.17. BEERMAN, Dorothee, David LEBLANC and Henk van RIEMSDIJK (eds): Rightward

Movement. 1997.18. ALEXIADOU, Artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax.

1997.19. JOSEFSSON, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swed-

ish. 1998.20. LAENZLINGER, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Ad-

verbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998.21. KLEIN, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998.22. ALEXIADOU, Artemis and Chris WILDER (eds): Possessors, Predicates and Move-

ment in the Determiner Phrase. 1998.23. GIANNAKIDOU, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998.24. REBUSCHI, Georges and Laurice TULLER (eds): The Grammar of Focus. 1999.25. FELSER, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception

constructions. 1999.26. ACKEMA, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999.

27. R °UZICKA, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study.1999.

28. HERMANS, Ben and Marc van OOSTENDORP (eds.): The Derivational Residue inPhonological Optimality Theory. 1999.

29. MIYAMOTO, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbalnoun. 1999.

30. BEUKEMA, Frits and Marcel den DIKKEN (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in EuropeanLanguages. 2000.

31. SVENONIUS, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000.32. ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Paul LAW, André MEINUNGER and Chris WILDER (eds.):

The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000.33. PUSKÁS, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of È-positions. 2000.34. REULAND, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization.

2000.35. HRÓARSDÓTTIR, Thorbjörg. Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO.

2000.36. GERLACH, Birgit and Janet GRIJZENHOUT (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphol-

ogy and Syntax. 2000.37. LUTZ, Uli, Gereon MÜLLER and Arnim von STECHOW (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking.

2000.38. MEINUNGER, André: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000.39. GELDEREN, Elly van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, ‘‘Self’’, and

Interpretability. 2000.40. HOEKSEMA, Jack, Hotze RULLMANN, Victor SANCHEZ-VALENCIA and Ton

van der WOUDEN (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001.41. ZELLER, Jochen : Particle Verbs and Local Domains. n.y.p.42. ALEXIADOU, Artemis : Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and

ergativity. n.y.p.43. FEATHERSTON, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001.44. TAYLAN, Eser E. (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. n.y.p.45. ABRAHAM, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter ZWART (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic)

Typology. n.y.p46. PANAGIOTIDIS, Phoevos: Pronouns, clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and

licensing in syntax. n.y.p.

Documents

A history of English reflexive pronouns : person, self, and interpretability