Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Lee Walkden Clare College This thesis is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge June 2012 1 Abstract This thesis investigates methods, possibilities and limitations in the reconstruction of syntax in a framework which holds that the object of inquiry is knowledge of language and which acknowledges that the transmission of that knowledge is discontinuous. The main objections to syntactic reconstruction raised in the literature are assessed, and it is argued that the reconstruction of syntax is qualitatively different from lexical-phonological reconstruction due to the so-called ‘correspondence problem’; it is also suggested that other objections to syntactic reconstruction based on assumed lack of parallel between syntax and phonology, such as the supposed absence of directional tendencies and inability to identify contact influence, are either illusory or reduce to the correspondence problem. It is argued that the approach taken in current Minimalist theories of syntactic variation, in which all such variation is attributed to the properties of lexical items, sheds light on the problem of syntactic reconstruction by enabling a clear comparison between syntactic and phonological variation, and opens the door for syntactic reconstruction as lexical reconstruction. Practical solutions for circumventing the correspondence problem are also discussed, in particular the use of both distributional properties of lexical items and the phonological forms of such items in order to establish cognacy. The bulk of the thesis is devoted to case studies from the early Germanic languages intended to illustrate this methodology, dealing with verb position in main clauses, the syntax of the wh-system, and the (non-)occurrence of null pronominal subjects and objects. With regard to verb position it is argued that all the early Germanic languages except Gothic exhibit robust evidence for verb movement to the C-domain in neutral declarative main clauses, and that other positions may well have been associated with specific interpretive effects. In the wh-system verb movement to the C-domain was even more clearly established, again with certain classes of well-defined exceptions that can be accounted for on a principled basis; treating the early Germanic wh-system as a whole also leads to a less stipulative account of the supposed West Germanic ‘interjection’ *hwat, as an underspecified wh-item introducing an exclamative clause. Subjects (and, more rarely, objects) could be null in all the early Germanic languages, with slight variations; a partial null argument analysis of these languages is argued for, and it is suggested that this property can be reconstructed at least for Proto-Northwest Germanic. 2 Declaration This dissertation is my own work and contains nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration with others, except as specified in the text and Acknowledgements. The total word count, including footnotes and references, is 84,743 words. 3 Acknowledgements More people than I can name have helped me in more ways than I can name during the time that this thesis was put together, so my first acknowledgement is to those people who I’ve unjustifiably failed to acknowledge below. Sorry. This research was supported by Arts & Humanities Research Council Doctoral Award AH/H026924/1. For comments and discussion at workshops and conferences, I am grateful to Kristin Bech, Kersti Börjars, Sarah Courtney, Tonya Kim Dewey, Roland Hinterhölzl, Richard Ingham, Brian Joseph, Ans van Kemenade, Ruba Khamam, Tony Kroch, Svetlana Petrova, Susan Pintzuk, Gertjan Postma, Laurie Reid, Christine Meklenborg Salvesen, Eva Schlachter, Ann Taylor, Ewa Trutkowski, Phillip Wallage, Joel Wallenberg, Richard Waltereit and Wim van der Wurff. I am particularly grateful to Svetlana Petrova and to Susan Pintzuk and Ann Taylor for looking after me during research visits to Berlin and York respectively, during which I learned a lot. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers of the journal articles stemming from my research for this thesis. Various of the people who taught me languages and linguistics as an undergraduate deserve thanks: Debbie Anderson, Anne Breitbarth, Michelle Crowe, Richard Dance, Stephen Fennell, Mari Jones, Kirsty McDougall, Sheila Watts. Other linguists in Cambridge helped out in various different ways, in particular Theresa Biberauer, James Clackson, Kasia Jaszczolt, Adam Ledgeway, Chris Lucas, Ian Roberts, Michelle Sheehan and Bert Vaux. Thanks to Cambridge coursemates and friends: Alastair Appleton, Tim Bazalgette, Alison Biggs, Cat Davies, Fiona Hanlon, Ena Hodzik, Minyao Huang, Petros Karatsareas, Elliott Lash, Dimitris Michelioudakis, Moreno Mitrović, Iain Mobbs, Neil Myler, Elena Pala, Artūras Ratkus, Latifa Sadoc, Liane-Louise Smith, David Thomas, Anna Tristram, Jen Wainwright, Liv Walsh. Thanks to two friends from further back, Alastair Mailer and David Woods, who reminded me that there was life outside linguistics, if not outside academia, and thanks to all my other non- linguistics friends. Craig Gibson, my personal trainer, helped keep me in shape mentally as well as physically, going far beyond the call of duty. Many thanks to linguists in Manchester, particularly Yuni Kim and Danielle Turton, for helping me settle in there during the last stages of this thesis – and thanks for giving me a job. I’ll try not to let you down. My parents Bob and Diana Walkden have been wonderfully supportive, and my brother Michael is the best source of distraction I know. 4 Theresa Biberauer deserves a special mention for her seemingly infinite energy and unfailing enthusiasm, and for continually pointing me in useful directions. Ian Roberts has been an amiable, accessible guru. My advisor, Sheila Watts, has taught me more about linguistics than anyone else over the last seven- and-a-half years, from my first baby steps to where I am now, and I am tremendously grateful to her for that. Finally, David Willis has been a model supervisor. He always knew when I needed prodding and when I needed to be cut some slack; his comments on my work were always constructive, thoughtful and thorough; he provided invaluable advice not just on the process of rounding up eighty thousand words and organizing them into the form of a thesis, but on every aspect of how to be an academic linguist. It’s mainly thanks to him that I now have a shot at spending the rest of my life doing what I love: thinking, and learning, about language. I can’t thank him enough for that. This thesis is dedicated to my grandmother, Joy Houlton. 5 List of abbreviations ACC accusative CL clitic DAT dative DEF definite FEM feminine GEN genitive INF infinitive INSTR instrumental INTJ interjection MASC masculine NEG negative NOM nominative OPT optative PL plural PRET preterite PRT particle REFL reflexive SBJV subjunctive SG singular BCC Borer-Chomsky Conjecture EF Edge Feature HPSG Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar L1(, L2...) first language (etc.) LFG Lexical-Functional Grammar OE Old English OHG Old High German ON Old Norse OS Old Saxon PIC Phase Impenetrability Condition PIE Proto-Indo-European PLD primary linguistic data SVO(, SOV...) Subject-Verb-Object (etc.) UG Universal Grammar V2(, V3...) verb-second (etc.) Vfin finite verb 6 Contents Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic..............................................................1 Abstract.......................................................................................................................... 2 Declaration..................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................ 4 List of abbreviations...................................................................................................... 6 Contents..........................................................................................................................7 Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................10 1.1 Preamble............................................................................................................10 1.2 The mythmaker’s handbook: a constructivist approach to historical syntax...12 1.3 Syntactic framework......................................................................................... 15 1.4 The Germanic languages...................................................................................19 1.4.1 Gothic........................................................................................................ 21 1.4.2 Old Norse...................................................................................................23 1.4.3 Old English................................................................................................24 1.4.4 Old High German...................................................................................... 25 1.4.5 Old Saxon.................................................................................................. 25 1.4.6 Other sources of evidence......................................................................... 26 Chapter 2: A methodology for syntactic reconstruction.............................................28 2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................