Topicalization and Stress Clash Avoidance in the History of English

[Review]

By Augustin Speyer, Topics in English Linguistics 69, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin and New York, 2010, ix+286pp.

Masao Okazaki Ibaraki University*

Keywords: topicalization, stress clash, word order, syntactic change

1. Overview Topicalization in Present-Day English (PE) has both syntactic and functional peculiarities in that it is a movement (transformation) that produces the non-canonical OSV order, as shown in (1), and occurs in contexts where the fronted object NP serves as either a discourse topic, as exemplified in (2a), or a focus, as exemplified in (2b).

(1) Franki, I would never hire ti. (Postal (1998: 1)) (2) a. What do you think of fried eels?—Fried eels, I like to eat. (Fukuchi (1985: 75)) b. What do you like to eat?—Fried eels, I like to eat. (Fukuchi (1985: 77)) These syntactic and functional peculiarities of PE topicalization have aroused linguists’ interest particularly since the 1970s. The focus of syntactic research into PE topicalization has been on the nature of object movement, which is identified as an instance of wh-movement (e.g. Postal (1998)). Functional investigations into PE topicalization have identified the relation between contexts where it is utilized and its functions in discourse with a collection of actual situations where it is attested (e.g. Ward (1988)). Topicalization in Old English (OE) and Middle English (ME) has received generative linguists’ attention mainly for its two syntactic variants

* I am grateful to Hiroaki Konno for his critical comments on an earlier version of this review and to two anonymous EL reviewers for their valuable comments and sugges- tions which have helped me articulate the arguments in this review. Thanks also go to Ronald Schmidt-Fajlik for his comments for improving the style of this review.

English Linguistics 30: 1 (2013) 439–450 －439－ © 2013 by the English Linguistic Society of Japan 440 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 30, NO. 1 (2013) and its close relation to English word order change. One variant is OVS, which is attested mainly in OE and is seen as resulting from object movement with concomitant verb movement to the second position of a sentence (V2). The other variant is OSV, in which the verb is in the third position of a sentence (V3). The V3 in OE is said to occur in sentences with a pronominal subject and is often analyzed as the result of the procliticization of the subject to the verb. The V3 in ME, due to V2-loss, is argued to be derived simply by object movement and is possibly the ancestor of Early Modern English (EModE) and PE topicalization. Topicalization and Stress Clash Avoidance in the History of English by Augustin Speyer, which is under review, is taken to be an interesting enterprise in this context. This book does not belong to any stream of investigation into English topicalization and takes a fresh approach to it, producing the revival of interest in, and making a generative style adaptation of, an idea that goes back to Ries (1907); namely the idea that eurhythmy is one of the crucial factors determining word order variants. Speyer places Eng- lish topicalization in a diachronic context and reveals two facts: its abrupt decline in the ME period and its strong tendency toward excluding full NP subjects. Speyer proposes that these facts are regulated through the history of English by a constraint called the Clash Avoidance Requirement (CAR), which requires that “two elements of an equal, given prominence” be “separated by at least one element of lesser prominence” (p. 61). This proposal is worth closer examination since the primacy of phonological information over syntactic and functional information in the occurrence of English topicalization has not yet been discussed exhaustively in the literature. The book under review consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 introduces background notions on which the proposed analysis of English topicalization is based. Chapter 2 explores the decline of topicalization from ME to ModE and characterizes it as a change in syntactic usage which was induced by the CAR. Chapter 3 is an experimental investigation into the CAR in PE and Present-Day German. The CAR is shown to be operative in both languages on the basis of facts about the avoidance of two adjacent stresses. Chapter 4 deals with phonological devices for avoiding CAR vio- lations in topicalization and argues that pause insertion is the best way of the logically possible options for resolving stress clash between a topicalized object and a subject. Chapter 5 presents a new analysis of the word order variants of OE topicalization. The variation is argued to arise from interac- tions of the CAR with the OE IP structure which has two subject positions, one being for focused elements and the other being for non-focused ele- REVIEWS 441 ments. Chapter 6 contains concluding remarks. In this review, I will confine myself to discussing the viability of- Spey er’s CAR-based analysis relating to the diachronic decline of English topicalization and of his analysis of word order variation in OE topicalization, touching briefly upon related issues when they are judged to be relevant to the discussion.

2. Topicalization and the CAR in the History of English Speyer’s survey of English direct object topicalization (DOT) in The York-Toronto-Helsinki Corpus of Old English Prose (Taylor, Warner, Pintzuk and Beths (2003)), The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second edition (Kroch and Taylor (2000)), and The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (Kroch, Santorini and Delfs (2005)) reveals that the occurrence rate of DOT fell from the OE period to the EModE period (p. 27). It gradually decreased from 11.9% to 10.8% dur- ing the OE period, but an abrupt decline took place in the ME period. The rate descended to 4.6% in the ME period and ultimately to 3.6% in the EModE period. This diachronic change needs a thorough analysis, for it has not received any linguistic or philological attention. Speyer argues that what governed this change boils down to a strong preference for pronominal subjects in DOT cases. His survey in the above- mentioned corpora reveals that the decline rate of DOT cases with a full NP subject is higher than that of DOT cases with a pronominal subject (p. 52). The result of his survey in (3), which is adapted from Table 7 (p. 52), illustrates this difference. The occurrence rate of the former type descended from 13.7% to 1.1%, but that of the latter type from 11.0% to 4.9%. (3) oe1/2 oe3/4 me1 me2 me3 me4 eme1 eme2 eme3 full NP subj.% 13.7 7.9 7.6 5.8 3.4 2.9 2.1 2.3 1.1 pron. subj.% 11.0 12.8 14.2 6.6 8.3 5.8 6.9 5.3 4.9 (oe: Old English; me: Middle English; eme: Early Modern English) (time spans: oe1: ~850; oe2: 850~950; oe3: 950~1050; oe4: 1050~1150; me1:1150~1250; me2: 1250~1350; me3: 1350~1420; me4: 1420~1500; eme1: 1500~1570; eme2: 1570~1640; eme3: 1640~1710 (p. 255)) A strong preference for pronominal subjects in DOT is still observed in PE (p. 84). Of the 200 DOT cases Speyer examined in an unpublished corpus of naturally occurring topicalization compiled by Gregory L. Ward and Ellen Prince, 90.5% have pronominal subjects. 442 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 30, NO. 1 (2013)

The preference for pronominal subjects, as well as the avoidance of full NP subjects, in English DOT is seen as indicative of the crucial role that the presence and the absence of stress on subjects plays in determining the actual occurrence of DOT. Speyer observes (p. 54) that “for topicalization it matters most whether the subject is prosodically weak or not” and proposes (p. 61) that the occurrence of topicalization is regulated through the history of English by the CAR, which is formulated as in (4a) (descriptive form for foci) or, more generally, as in (4b) (descriptive general form). (4) a. If there is more than one focus in a clause, at least one non- focused element must intervene. (p. 61) b. Two elements of an equal, given prominence must be separated by at least one element of lesser prominence. (p. 61) The strong preference for pronominal subjects in ME, EModE and PE DOT, where OSV is dominant, results in avoiding a CAR violation. In OSV sentences with a pronominal subject and a topicalized full NP object, sentence stress falls on O and V, not on S. Stress clash does not arise, and DOT is allowed to take place. The strong tendency for excluding full NP subjects in ME, EModE and PE DOT is due to the rise of a CAR violation, which is caused by the two adjacent stresses on a full NP subject and a topicalized full NP object. The relevance of the CAR to the decline of English DOT implies that syntactic and functional factors do not count as crucial. The irrelevance of syntax can be seen in the fact that V2-loss with the concomitant “rigidifica- tion” of word order had few effects on the decline (pp. 48–50). In English, V2 has been lost, but DOT is still grammatical. In addition, the decline of English DOT is not such a “wholesome process” as V2-loss, which brought about fundamental changes in English syntax. The irrelevance of functional factors to the DOT decline can be seen in the retention of its functions since the ME period (pp. 26, 30–32, 37–41). Speyer observes that PE topicalization has four functions: (i) preposing a scene-setting expression in sentences like (5a), in which the focus is on the main clause, (ii) preposing an NP marked as a contrastive focus in sentences like (5b), in which beans and peas are contrasted with each other and become prosodic nuclei, (iii) preposing a discourse anaphoric element in sentences like (5c), in which this proposal is a repeated element in discourse, and (iv) preposing a focused element in sentences like (5d), in which only the preposed NP has the status of new information with no ex- plicit contrast with another NP. REVIEWS 443

(5) a. In the afternoon, I usually go for a walk. b. Beans he likes, but peas he hates. c. This proposal, we discussed at length. d. Pterodactylus, it is called. (p. 26) ME topicalization also has these four functions (pp. 37–41). The diachronic stability of these functions leads the author to conclude that functional factors did not have any effect on the diachronic decline of English DOT. Speyer’s CAR-based analysis of the decline of English DOT presents us with interesting facts about subject types in DOT and brings us a new insight into the relation between the word order variants and their determinant(s). However, Speyer’s arguments seem to be still weak in three respects. In the first place, Speyer needs to define stress clash more precisely. Hayes (1984: 39–58) observes that the Rhythm Rule (RR) in PE, which resolves stress clash by shifting stress leftwards in a gradient man- ner, applies to the rhythmic structures SWS and SWWS (S=strong syllable, W=weak syllable), where two Ss are separated by either one W or two, to produce SWWWS, which is taken as an optimal rhythm in PE, as shown by cases such as hòrizontal líne (< horizòntal líne) and rêmarkably clèver suggéstions (< remârkably clèver suggéstions). These two input rhythmic structures to the RR are also seen as stress clash environments in addition to two adjacent stresses. The CAR in (4) is formulated based on the view that sees two adjacent stresses as the sole stress clash environment and seems to be incompatible with PE stress clash facts. It then is designated as a device which applies only to topicalization or is to be revised so that it is compatible with PE stress clash facts adduced by Hayes (1984). The need for a precise definition of stress clash also comes from another set of facts about the RR in PE. Hayes (1989: 217) points out that its application is blocked by the boundary of a Phonological Phrase (PPh), whose formation process is put aside here for lack of space. This blocking effect is exemplified by the fact that subject NPs do not undergo leftward stress shift in stress clash environments, as shown by the unacceptability of cases such as ??Mìssissippi óutlawed it (OK: Mississìppi óutlawed it) (Hayes (1989: 217)). (cf. Mìssissippi législature (Hayes (1984: 35)), which is derived from Mississìppi législature.) The syntactic boundary following the subject corresponds to a PPh boundary and blocks stress shift in Mississíppi (Hayes (1989: 217)). The same applies to topicalized NPs, which do not undergo stress shift in stress clash environments, as exemplified in (6). (6) * Tènnessee, I vísited. (OK: Tennessèe, I vísited.) (Hayes (1989: 217)) 444 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 30, NO. 1 (2013)

In (6), Tennessée and vísited meet the phonological conditions on RR application because one weaker syllable (the subject pronoun I) intervenes between them just as in cases like hòrizontal líne (< horizòntal líne). But stress shift does not take place in Tennessée. It is blocked by the main clause boundary between Tennessee and I, which, according to Hayes (1989: 217), corresponds to a PPh boundary. Hayes’s (1989) observation, if correct, implies that no stress clash arises between a topicalized object and a subject, whether they are full NPs or pronouns. In the same vein, ME topicalized objects and subjects may form no stress clash environment, whether they are full NPs or pronouns. In order to maintain the CAR in (4), Speyer needs to prove that the PPh boundary between a topicalized object and a subject does not block the rise of stress clash in English DOT. The presence of a main clause boundary between a topicalized object and a subject may also defy the argument that pause insertion is the best way of avoiding a CAR violation that arises between a topicalized full NP object and a full NP subject (pp. 164–169). Downing (1970: 30–31), Imai and Nakajima (1978: 471), and Bing (1979: 97) observe that, in PE DOT, the main clause boundary between a topicalized object and a subject is phoneti- cally manifested as a pause. The pause is inserted even when the subject is a pronoun, which does not produce any stress clash environment. Thus, pause insertion is not necessarily interpreted as a means of resolving stress clash in the object-subject sequence. It can be interpreted as a phonetic re- alization of a main clause boundary between them. Another fact which weakens the validity of Speyer’s analysis is that PE DOT involves syntactic operator movement. It patterns exactly with question extraction, (non-)restrictive relative extraction, (pseudo-)clefting, comparative extraction, and so forth (Postal (1998: 25–42), among others), none of which are induced by prosody. The occurrence of PE DOT is then unlikely to be conditioned solely by the CAR. ME DOT may also have the same property. In order to maintain the CAR-based analysis of English DOT, Speyer needs to prove that topicalization differs from the other cases of syntactic operator movement. A weakness in Speyer’s analysis of English DOT also lies in the lack of evidence other than clash avoidance for the conclusion that its diachronic decline is induced by prosody. Speyer needs to adduce diagnostic facts found in cases such as Classical Greek (CG) hyperbaton, which “disobeys a host of well-studied island constraints” and “arises as the result of constraint interaction in the phonological component” (Agbayani and Golston (2010: REVIEWS 445

133)). For example, CG hyperbaton does not obey the Left Branch Condi- tion, as shown in (7), and moves elements which do not form any syntactic constituent, as shown in (8). h (7) tínai [VP ék ei [DP ti dúnamin]] what.fem.acc.sg have.pres.sg power.fem.acc.sg ‘What power does it have?’ (Plato, Republic, 358b / Agbayani and Golston (2010: 145))

(8) tō̂ ni állōnj [PP péri [DP ti [NP tj the.masc.gen.pl other.masc.gen.pl about noméōn]]] herdsmen.masc.gen.pl ‘about the other herdsmen’ (Plato, Statesmen, 268b / Agbayani and Golston (2010: 138)) English DOT is not similar in nature to CG hyperbaton. It obeys well- studied syntactic constraints and arises as the result of constraint interaction in the syntactic component. For example, it is a main-clause phenomenon and does not generally occur in subordinate clauses (Emonds (1976), among others). (9) * I fear (that) each part John examined carefully. (Emonds (1976: 31)) It also conforms to syntactic island constraints (Lasnik and Saito (1992), among others). Object NPs cannot be topicalized from a complex NP.

(10)?? This booki, I accept the argument that John should read ti. (Lasnik and Saito (1992: 76)) The classes of facts adduced above suggest that the strong preference for pronominal subjects in ME, EModE and PE DOT is not necessarily regard- ed as evidence for the claim that English DOT is a phenomenon induced by prosody. Whether prosody counts most for its occurrence or not still remains to be examined closely.

3. Two Subject Positions in OE Another important issue Speyer discusses is the V2/V3 fluctuation in OE topicalization, which has been controversial in OE syntax. OE root clauses headed by an element other than the subject have the V2 and V3 variants. It has been generally observed that the former are attested when the subject is a full NP, as in (11a), and that the latter arise when it is a pronoun, as in (11b). 446 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 30, NO. 1 (2013)

(11) a. þone wæterscipe beworhte se the.acc.sg conduit.acc.sg construct.pret.3sg the.nom.sg wisa cyning Salomon mid fif porticon wise.nom.sg king.nom.sg Salomon with five portico fæstum weorcstanum, massive.dat.pl hewn-stone.dat.pl ‘The wise king Salomon constructed the conduit with five porticoes of solid stones’ (coaelhom,+AHom_2:10.251 / p. 179) b. Ond eallum þam dagum buton Sunnandagum and all.dat.pl the.dat.pl day.dat.pl except Sunday.dat.pl he afæste to æfenes, he.nom fast.pret.3sg till evening.gen.sg ‘and he fasted all days, except for Sundays, till the evening’ (cobede,Bede_3:17.230.30.2368 / p. 179) Speyer (p. 222), following Haeberli (2002) and Haeberli and Pintzuk (2008), proposes an OE clause structure with two layers (T(ense)P and M(ood)P) of the IP architecture, as represented in (12), which has two subject positions, one being [Spec, MP] for focal NPs and the other being [Spec, TP] for non-focal NPs.

(12) [CP SPEC CP [C′ C [TP SPEC TP [T′ T [MP SPEC MP [M′ M [VP …V…]]]]]]] Speyer argues that this clause structure, together with the CAR, solves the OE V2/V3 puzzle. In cases like (11a), the full NP subject moves to the lower subject position and is preceded by the verb, as shown in (13a). No stress clash arises because the verb is weaker than the subject. In cases like (11b), by contrast, the pronominal subject moves to the higher subject position, as shown in (13b). No clash arises in this case, either, for pronouns are not stressed. The movement of a full NP subject to the higher subject position is expected to be blocked, for it is highly likely to produce stress clash with a full NP object.

(13) a. [CP XP3 [C′ e [TP e [T′ verb1 [MP full NP2 [M′ t1 [VP t2…t3… t1…]]]]]]] b. [CP XP3 [C′ e [TP pronoun2 [T′ verb1 [MP t2 [M′ t1 [VP t2…t3… t1…]]]]]]] Speyer (p. 185) also points out two problems with the cliticization analysis of OE V3, in which pronominal subjects are procliticized to verbs (Kemenade (1987) and Pintzuk (1999), among others). One problem is that it incorrectly predicts the occurrence of pronoun procliticization in sub- REVIEWS 447 ordinate clauses and questions, where it is unattested. The other problem comes from the occurrence of V3 sentences with a full NP subject through the OE period. They are expected to be unattested, because subject procliticization applies only to pronouns. Actually, however, they are attested. Their occurrence rate is not low: 15.67% in accusative NP topicalization, 44.2% in dative NP topicalization, and 33.25% in PP topicalization (p. 181). Speyer’s survey of the OE V2/V3 fluctuation is illuminating in that it en- ables us to see a new picture of OE topicalization variation, presenting new facts about its word order patterns: the irrelevance of object types to the occurrence of topicalization (pp. 218–219), the difference between PP topicalization and object topicalization (p. 181), the distribution of subject types (pp. 220–227), and so forth. Speyer’s characterization of the OE V2/V3 fluctuation by means of the CAR in (4) and the clause structure in (12) also works well, and the primacy of the CAR for determining surface word order variants is evaluated as a valid hypothesis at least for OE. It correctly predicts that the eight logically possible word order variants of OE DOT, which are shown in (14), occur actually. (14) a. [full NP obj] V [full NP subj] ‌ b. [full NP obj] [full NP subj] V c. [pronoun obj] V [full NP subj] d. [pronoun obj] [full NP subj] V e. [full NP obj] V [pronoun subj] f. [full NP obj] [pronoun subj] V g. [pronoun obj] V [pronoun subj] h. [pronoun obj] [pronoun subj] V Two V3 variants of OE DOT with a full NP subject ((14b) and (14d)) are allowed to surface in addition to its V2 variants, as exemplified in (15a) and (15b). In (15a), stress clash does not arise. The object NP ends with the syllables -spelleras, which, being weaker syllables, resolve stress clash in the object-subject sequence (ðas feower godspelleras God). No clash arises in (15b), either. The topicalized pronominal object is stressless. (15) a. and ðas feower godspelleras God and the.acc.pl four evangelist.acc.pl God.nom.sg geswutelode gefyrn … Ezechiele reveal.pret.3sg long-ago… Ezechiel.dat.sg ‘and God announced these four evangelists to Ezechiel long ago’ (coaelive,+ALS_[Mark]:174.3311 / p. 180) 448 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 30, NO. 1 (2013)

b. & hit Englisce men swyðe and it.acc.sg English.nom.pl man.nom.pl fiercely amyrdon. prevent.pret.3pl ‘and the Englishmen prevented it fiercely.’ (cochronE,ChronE_[Plummer]:1073.2.2681 / p. 38) In the same vein, the V2 variants of OE DOT with a pronominal subject ((14e) and (14g)) are allowed to arise in addition to V3 variants (pp. 219– 220). In neither of them does the pronominal subject enter into the rise of stress clash. Without the CAR, one would expect the word order variants in (14b), (14d), (14e), and (14g) to be unattested. The clause structure in (12) allows no exception to occur and predicts that none of these patterns should be attested. Full NP subjects, which are likely to be focused, should be required to move to the position of [Spec, MP] and to follow the verb, and pronoun subjects, which are unlikely to be focused, are required to move to the position of [Spec, TP] and to precede the verb. It is the primacy of the CAR that allows (14b), (14d), (14e), and (14g) to surface. Despite its merits, Speyer’s characterization of the OE V2/V3 fluctuation has two problems. Speyer’s argument for the division of labor between the two subject positions seems to be still weak. As shown in (14), the two subject positions are both occupied by full NPs (focal elements) and pronouns (non-focal elements), and the functions which they are originally argued to have seem to be hard to maintain. The possibility arises that the clause structure in (12) plays little role in determining V2 and V3 and that we are left with the mere repertoire of OE word order variants. Speyer does not seem to succeed in identifying any precise subject position in OE. The other problem with Speyer’s solution of the OE V2/V3 puzzle lies in the definition of OE stress clash. Speyer defines two adjacent stresses as the sole stress clash environment in OE, but this definition needs examining for two reasons. First, the mere adjacency of two stresses is not necessarily the sole stress clash environment, as mentioned in section 2. It must be examined whether or not other phonological environments in OE function as stress clash environments. The other reason comes from the possibility that the left-edge of an OE IP, like the left-edge of a PE IP, corresponds to the left-edge of a PPh and blocks the rise of stress clash. OE topicalized elements move out of IP, as shown in (13). The possibility still remains that an OE topicalized element is separated from the remainder of the sentence by a PPh boundary and forms no stress clash configuration with the imme- REVIEWS 449 diately following element.

4. Concluding Remarks As mentioned at the outset of this review, Speyer’s attempt to make a unified diachronic characterization of English topicalization from the view- point of stress clash avoidance is an interesting enterprise. Few studies have argued for an exhaustive phonology-based explanation of English word order variants except for studies such as Ries (1907), who tried to capture word order variants in Beowulf in terms of eurhythmy. Speyer’s attempt has the possibility of making a significant breakthrough in the diachronic study of English sentence word order. It is true that Speyer’s attempt achieves partial success. He identifies the diachronic decline of English topicalization, the strong preference for pronominal subjects in ME, EModE and PE topicalization, and prosodic aspects of OE topicalization. But his attempt does not achieve full success. He needs to refine the definition of stress clash and he has failed to account for syntactic aspects of topicalization which cannot be reduced to any phonological property. The arguments for his CAR-based analysis of English topicalization do not seem to be cogent enough to replace any previously proposed syntactic or functional analyses. The surface form of topicalization cases is seemingly simple, but the way syntactic, phonological, and discourse factors interact with each other in generating them are complicated. We still have a lot of work to do to ar- rive at a deeper understanding of diachronic and synchronic aspects of Eng- lish topicalization.

REFERENCES Agbayani, Brian and Chris Golston (2010) “Phonological Movement in Classical Greek,” Language 86, 133–167. Bing, Janet M. (1979) Aspects of English Prosody, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Emonds, Joseph (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Struc- ture-Preserving, and Local Transformations, Academic Press, New York. Downing, Bruce T. (1970) Syntactic Phrases and Phonological Phrases in English, Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Fukuchi, Hajime (1985) Danwa no Kozo (Discourse Structure), Taishukan, Tokyo. Haeberli, Eric (2002) “Inflectional Morphology and the Loss of Verb-Second in 450 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 30, NO. 1 (2013)

English,” Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, ed. by David Lightfoot, 88–106, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Haeberli, Eric and Susan Pintzuk (2008) “Structural Variation in Old English Root Clauses,” Language Variation and Change 20, 367–407. Hayes, Bruce (1984) “The Phonology of Rhythm in English,” Linguistic Inquiry 15, 33–74. Hayes, Bruce (1989) “Prosodic Hierarchy in Meter,” Phonetics and Phonology 1: Rhythm and Meter, ed. by Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans, 201–260, Aca- demic Press, San Diego. Imai, Kunihiko and Heizo Nakajima (1978) Bun II (Sentence II), Kenkyusha, Tokyo. Kemenade, Ans van (1987) Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English, Foris, Dordrecht. Kroch, Anthony and Ann Taylor (2000) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second edition, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini and Lauren Delfs (2005) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English, University of Pennsylvania, Philadel- phia, Pennsylvania. Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992) Move α: Conditions on Its Application and Output, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Pintzuk, Susan (1999) Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order, Garland, New York. Postal, Paul M. (1998) Three Investigations of Extraction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Ries, John (1907) Die Wortstellung im Beowulf, Niemeyer, Halle and Saale. Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk and Frank Beths (2003) The York- Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose, University of York, Helington, York. Ward, Gregory L. (1988) The Semantics and Pragmatics of Preposing, Garland, New York.

[received July 22 2012, revised and accepted December 4 2012]

College of Humanities Ibaraki University 2–1–1 Bunkyo, Mito-shi Ibaraki 310–8512 e-mail: [email protected]