Rissanen-Syntax.Pdf

SYNTAX Matti Rissanen 4.1 Introduction In the course of the Middle English period, a number of major changes took place in the structure of English. The most important of these were the reduction of the system of inflectional endings, the reorganisation of the patterns of word order and the trend toward the use of analytic constructions instead of synthetic ones. These developments were related, and their roots can be found in Old English. The effects of these changes on English syntax can be clearly seen in the first two centuries of the Modern period, from about 1500 to about 1700. At that time, the structure of the language was gradually established so that eighteenth-century standard written English closely resembles the present- day language. The language of most sixteenth-century authors still reflects the heritage of Middle English, whilst it is possible to read long passages from eighteenth-century novels or essays and find only minor deviations from present-day constructions. It is thus obvious that a description of English syntax from the late fifteenth to the late eighteenth century should pay constant attention to change. It is equally obvious that the description will mainly focus on the first two Early Modern centuries. Sixteenth-century texts are characterised by a richness of variant forms and constructions, inherited from Middle English and, to a lesser extent, influenced by Latin. In seventeenth-century writing, the abundance of variants was gradually reduced. Thus it is no wonder that an account of Early Modern syntactic developments easily creates an impression of a movement from greater variabil- ity and lack of organisation towards a more regulated and orderly state. This is mainly due to the fact that the establishment of the written standard which had been developing mainly in the London area since late 187 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Princeton Univ, on 19 Oct 2017 at 01:03:22, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/termsCambridge Histories. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264761.005Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008 Matti Rissanen Middle English (see Lass, Görlach, Adamson this volume) necessarily forms the backbone of the discussion. The description of the shaping of the standard is bound to be closely concerned with systematic structural aspects and with acceptable and less acceptable variants. References to the early grammarians’ normative statements may enhance this impression. It must be emphasised, however, that the regularising trend is typical of written language only; informal spoken English has retained a richness of variants throughout the centuries. It is a constant source of frustration for the language historian that all observations and analyses of the early periods have to be based on written evidence only, while the importance of speech in the development of the language is self-evident. In Early Modern English, the situation is some- what less problematic than in Old or Middle English as there is no short- age of texts representing a wide variety of styles and registers. It is, of course, a truism that no written text, be it dialogue in a comedy or novel, a sermon or a record of a debate or discussion, will ever give a faithful repro- duction of spoken language. But by a careful comparison of texts which stand at different distances from spoken language (judging by the discourse situation, the purpose of the text, the educational level of the author and other extralinguistic criteria), it is possible to present hypotheses about whether a certain construction is favoured or avoided in the spoken language of the period. Hypotheses of this kind may help us in our attempt to trace the typical domain of certain syntactic features either to the oral level of language, as ‘changes from below’, or to the literate end of the scale, as ‘changes from above’. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are marked by an enormous change in the cultural and social life in England. We need only mention the art of printing, the revived focus on classical literature and learning, advances in science and the expanding world view which brought forth an interest in the languages of the world and the character of human language in general. On the social side, the weakening of family ties, urbanisation and the general mobility of the population and movements along the social scale are to be noted. These external aspects are no doubt of greater importance to developments in vocabulary than in syntax. It is also important to keep in mind Lass’s warning in chapter 1, that language ‘itself ’ and its change should not be confused with language users’ choices between the resources of language and with the mechanics which lie behind the emergence and spread of changes. But it is equally obvious that change in language cannot be ade- quately analysed or discussed without an awareness of the speakers’ or 188 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Princeton Univ, on 19 Oct 2017 at 01:03:22, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/termsCambridge Histories. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264761.005Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008 Syntax writers’ (conscious or unconscious) choices, or of the factors, linguistic or extralinguistic, affecting these choices. Unfortunately, in the present chapter, it has not been possible to pay systematic attention to these aspects, which form the basis for the variationist approach to change. All too little variationist research has been done in Early Modern syntax so far; furthermore, a reliable quantificational discussion of syntactic variation would have lengthened this chapter beyond reasonable limits. One external influence, frequently referred to with respect to Early Modern English syntax, is foreign, particularly Latin models. The constructions mentioned in this context include, for example, absolute clauses and wh-relativisers. In general, however, foreign models only support the spread and establishment of syntactic elements ultimately derived from native resources. Classical ideals no doubt exercised an important influence on stylistic developments in renaissance English writing, and this increased the popularity of certain constructions, particularly those related to the formation of complex sentences with various types of subordination, non-finite clauses, etc. In the present chapter, I have attempted to discuss the most important syntactic constructions in Early Modern English, with particular attention to the features which underwent major changes. As mentioned above, the roots of these can be found in Middle or even Old English; in the Modern period, transitional stages were followed by the establishment of the system. The most dramatic developments are connected with verb syntax: the auxiliaries indicating future or (plu)perfect, the progressive (beϩ-ing) and do-periphrasis. In the formation of noun phrases, the use of the articles becomes more systematic than in Middle English, and the possibility of using adjectives or the adjectival forms of indefinite pronouns as heads more restricted. Subject–verb order is established in statements, and impersonal constructions with no ‘nominative’ subject disappear. At the level of the composite sentence, the distinction between coordination and subordination becomes more clearcut than in Middle English and that between the personal relative link who and the impersonal which becomes fixed. There are, in fact, very few major syntactic changes after the end of the eighteenth century, although change in language is of course an ongoing and never-ending process. The passive of the progressive (the type ‘The house is being built’ instead of the older ‘The house is building’) is prob- ably the most conspicuous of these. Unfortunately, many Early Modern English syntactic features and their developments are still unsatisfactorily explored; this concerns particularly the domain of text linguistics. The present chapter does not discuss, for 189 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Princeton Univ, on 19 Oct 2017 at 01:03:22, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/termsCambridge Histories. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264761.005Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008 Matti Rissanen instance, new ways of topicalisation necessitated by the greater rigidity of word order; in many other cases, too, my suggestions based on available evidence remain inconclusive or inaccurate. The majority of the examples illustrating the syntactic constructions and their development are taken from the Early Modern English section of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (see Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 1989, Rissanen et al. 1993, Kytö 1996). This consists of samples from some eighty texts (counting letter collections, etc. as one text only), all in all more than half a million words of English, mainly prose, dating from about 1500 to about 1700. In addition, I have collected examples from primary texts, from standard treatises of Early Modern English and the history of English and from monographs and articles dealing with particular syntactic problems. My examples come mainly from prose, the most notable exception being the early dramatic texts. Most sixteenth-century plays were written in verse, and the prestigious position of such authors as Shakespeare, Jonson and Marlowe in earlier studies of Modern English has led me to quote passages from their verse plays. I have, however, tried to avoid quoting verse instances in contexts where poetical form would clearly have influenced the syntax. Using the structured Helsinki Corpus [HC] material has made it possible to draw conclusions concerning the frequencies of the variant constructions. Quantitative considerations are important in diachronic syntax, because developments are more often describable in terms of increasing or decreasing frequency than in the emergence of new constructions or the complete disappearance of old ones. It is also useful to be able to comment, in quantitative terms, on the effect of the internal or external factors on the popularity of a construction.

Load more