COVER SHEET

TITLE: The loss of residual “head-final” orders and remnant fronting in Late Middle English: causes and consequences

RUNNING HEAD:Loss of residual “head-final” orders in Late Middle English

NAMES:Mary Theresa Biberauer & Ian Gareth Roberts

AFFILIATION:Linguistics Department, Cambridge University

CURRENT ADDRESSES:Theresa Biberauer Ian RobertsNewnham College Downing CollegeCambridge CambridgeCB3 9DF CB1 9DQEngland England

EMAIL ADDRESSES:mtb23@cam.ac.ukigr20@cam.ac.uk

The loss of residual “head-final” orders and remnant fronting in Late Middle English: causes and consequences

Theresa Biberauer & Ian Roberts

1. Introduction

The primary empirical focus of this paper is the residual “head-final” orders found in Middle English (ME). The usual chronology for the general change from OV to VO in English situates it in Early ME (Canale 1978, van Kemenade 1987, Lightfoot 1991, Roberts 1997, Kroch & Taylor 1994, Fischer et al 2000), but as various authors have pointed out, orders which are indicative of some kind of persisting OV grammar are found, albeit at rather low frequency and somewhat disguised by other factors, until the 15th century (see Fischer et al 2000:177 for a summary and references). Here we will propose an analysis of these orders which supports the novel proposal in Biberauer & Roberts (2005; henceforth: B&R) that the loss of residual “head-final” orders is related to the introduction of obligatory clause-internal expletives. The reason for this is that both developments result from the loss of vP-movement to SpecTP and its replacement by DP-movement to that position.

The orders we will look at are so-called Stylistic Fronting (Styl-F), Verb Raising, i.e. SVAux sequences, and what has been analysed as Verb Projection Raising (VPR), i.e. AuxOV sequences. Following and developing the proposals in B&R, we propose new analyses of these orders. We also integrate the observations and analysis of van der Wurff (1997, 1999) and Ingham (2002, 2003) regarding the last attested OV orders with non-pronominal DPs. Furthermore, we show how the changes that we propose for Late ME created some of the preconditions for the well-known development of a syntactically distinct class of modal auxiliaries in the 16 th century (Lightfoot 1979, Roberts 1985, 1993, Warner 1997, Roberts & Roussou 2003, Biberauer & Roberts 2006a, b).

The paper is organised as follows. In §2, we outline our theoretical assumptions, in particular those relating to the different ways in which EPP-features can be satisfied (see Biberauer 2003, Richards & Biberauer 2004, 2005, Biberauer & Richards 2005, 2006) and show how these ideas give rise to the novel account of word-order change in ME presented in B&R. In §3, we summarise the prevailing view of the chronology of the loss of “head-final” orders in ME, basing our discussion mainly on Kroch & Taylor (2000). We then present our analyses of Styl-F and of V(P)R. Finally, in §4, we look at some of the consequences of the proposed analysis of V(P)R, showing how van der Wurff and Ingham’s results can be incorporated, and sketch the connection between these Late ME changes and the developments affecting modals in ENE.

2. EPP-satisfaction and pied-piping

The technical notion central to the account of word-order change proposed by B&R is that of pied-piping. More specifically, they adopt the analysis of pied-piping put forward in Biberauer & Richards (2005, 2006) and Richards & Biberauer (2004, 2005). This analysis exploits the distinction between two related properties a given

head may have in the version of the theory of movement and checking/agreement of features proposed in Chomsky (2001, 2004), namely that of being a Probe on the one hand and that of being associated with one or more EPP-features on the other. In terms of this theory, a head may bear an (active) uninterpretable/unvalued feature (e.g. a φ-feature) which functions as a Probe, necessitating the location of a matching Goal, i.e. a category bearing an interpretable/valued counterpart of the probing feature since the unvalued feature of the Probe must be eliminated from the derivation in order for convergence (well-formedness) to be possible. The operation facilitating this feature-elimination is assumed to be Agree. Agree holds between a Probe P and a Goal G under the following three conditions:

(1) a. P must (asymmetrically) c-command G;b. P and G must be non-distinct in features; andc. there must be no Goal G’ G such that P c-commands G’, G’

c-commands G and G does not c-command G’.

Agree relationships can be successfully set up without the need for movement: as long as P and G meet the conditions outlined above, they can enter into an Agree relation, eliminating unvalued features in both the probe and the goal, which remains in situ. The theory of feature-checking (or, more accurately, feature-valuing/Agree) that we adopt therefore departs from earlier Minimalist proposals (cf. Chomsky 1995) in terms of which movement and the creation of a very local (Spec-head/head-head) configuration was regarded as a prerequisite for feature-checking.

The Agree-based theory that we adopt does not, however, rule out the possibility that feature-checking (Agree) and movement may coincide: wherever a Probe-bearing head is associated with an EPP-feature, convergence is in fact only possible if the creation of the appropriate Agree relation is accompanied by movement of the Goal-bearing category. The most important characteristic of this system for B&R’s purposes is that there is nothing which prevents a Goal G from being properly contained inside a category which is moved in order to satisfy the Probe’s EPP-feature. This option must be admitted in order to allow for standard cases of pied-piping, as when the object of a preposition is questioned or relativised in a language such as French which disallows preposition-stranding, see (2):

(2) A qui as-tu parlé?To whom have.you spoken?“ Who(m) have you spoken to?”

We can schematise this situation as in (3):

(3) whPROBE … [PP whGOAL … ] …

Here PP moves to satisfy the Probe’s EPP-feature, but the Goal is the wh-feature on qui which is properly contained in PP.

Pied-piping under wh-movement is obligatory in French, as is well known, while English famously allows both options, pied-piping and stranding. It is thus clear that Universal Grammar allows variation as to whether it is simply the Goal that moves or whether a larger category is required to move in order to satisfy the Probe’s EPP-feature.

More generally, pied-piping involves the abstract configuration in (4) and Universal Grammar allows crosslinguistic variation as to whether ZGOAL moves to X or the larger category YP containing ZGOAL moves to SpecXP:

(4) … XPROBE … [YP … ZGOAL … ] …

Biberauer (2003), Richards & Biberauer (2004, 2005) and Biberauer & Richards (2005, 2006) exploit this option to account for aspects of word-order variation in Germanic and to provide a unified analysis of T-related EPP-satisfaction in this language family. Specifically, they propose that, in terms of the schema in (4), X may be T, YP may be vP and Z an element with D-features (either a subject-DP/expletive or nominal morphology on the verb; see below) since T is assumed to probe for a D-bearing Goal. This means that vP-movement may take place where the Goal is in fact a D-element (Z in (4)) probed by T (X in (4)). In other words, T with a D-oriented Probe may in fact attract a vP. The D-features of the Goal contained in vP satisfy the active uninterpretable formal feature (i.e. the D-feature) of T, while vP-movement (i.e. pied-piping) satisfies T’s EPP-feature.

On this basis, Richards & Biberauer (2005) construct a four-way typology of ways of satisfying T’s EPP- and D-features based on the two parameters of the source of the D-feature and the size of the category containing or bearing the D-feature targeted by the probe’s EPP-feature. The source of the D-feature may be either the verb morphology, in languages where this morphology is sufficiently “rich” (cf. Borer 1986, Barbosa 1995, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 1998), or, in languages with more impoverished verbal morphology, the DP contents of (outer) SpecvP (see below). The size of the category containing or bearing the D-feature may either correspond to that of the Goal (the finite verb or the DP subject) or to that of the maximal category containing the Goal (vP). Table 1, from Richards & Biberauer (2005), illustrates the typology:

Table 1: Typology of modes of (T-related) EPP-satisfactionSource: [D] on Vf Source: [D] in outer SpecvP

Size: [-pied-piping] Head raising Spec raising Size: [+pied-piping] Head pied-piping Spec pied-piping

The first row of Table 1 indicates two modes of EPP-satisfaction that have been much discussed in recent literature, namely that exhibited by Modern English-type as opposed to so-called null subject languages. In the former case, T’s EPP-requirements are satisfied by DP-raising from SpecvP (i.e. spec-raising), which gives rise to the consistent presence of a DP in subject position, including obligatory overt expletives in the relevant contexts. The latter case is instantiated by canonical null-subject languages such as Greek or Italian on the type of analysis of null subjects which assumes that the subject argument is represented by the “rich” verbal morphology (see the references given above): in this case, V-to-T movement (i.e. head raising) results in EPP-satisfaction. The second row of Table 1 presents two new modes of EPP-satisfaction put forward in Richards & Biberauer (2005) which, however, differ minimally from those that are already established in the literature. Thus so-called head pied-piping languages are those which have “rich” verbal inflection and therefore target the D-feature located on the finite verb, but which additionally pied-pipe the category (vP) containing the D-bearing head. German is an example of this type of language. The option which is of most relevance in the present context is the

spec pied-piping type, i.e. that where the “source” of the D-features is, as in Modern English, the DP located in SpecTP, while the [+pied-piping] setting of the “size” parameter requires movement of the category containing this DP, i.e. vP. Richards & Biberauer (2005) argue that this particular combination of parameter settings, uniquely among the possible combinations represented in Table 1, allows two distinct operations to satisfy T’s featural requirements: either movement of the DP in the specifier of vP (i.e. DP-movement), or vP-movement. They argue that these two options both represent pied-piping of categories of different sizes containing the [D] Goal, and that both options are available because there are no system-internal or input-based reasons for speakers of spec pied-piping languages to rule out DP-raising as an alternative to vP-raising. As far as the spec pied-piping grammar is concerned, DP- and vP-raising are thus equally allowable modes of T-related EPP-satisfaction. According to B&R, this is so because pied-piping can be seen as an instruction to the grammar to move a category larger than the nominal or verbal head which actually constitutes the Goal of the Agree relation, with no precise specification as to the “size” of that category; all that matters is that an XP of some type, rather than just the D-bearing head, ultimately satisfies T’s EPP-requirements. Both DP-raising and vP-raising therefore count as instances of pied-piping, although they instantiate slightly different species of pied-piping: with DP-raising, it is arguably the case that the features for which the Probe searches are instantiated in distributed and partially overlapping fashion on the various elements making up the DP. Consider, for example, the way in which φ-features are very clearly seen to be distributed across the various lexical items making up DPs in languages with rich nominal agreement – cf. the German DP in (5) in this connection:

(5) Der kleine Junge – “the small boy”NOM NOM

Masc Masc Masc Sing Sing Sing

If we assume (finite) T to be in search of a complete set of φ-features (cf. Chomsky 2000 et seq.), it is clear that just raising Junge will not suffice as this would amount to raising only part of the Goal; exclusively raising the D-element der might seem sufficient in this case, but the fact that it is not obligatory for D-elements to be instantiated in German nominals may be relevant here.We leave this interesting matter aside for further research into the rather poorly understood nature of pied-piping, noting only that DP-raising differs from vP-raising in respect of whether or not every instance of this operation will pied-pipe non-Goal (i.e. “extra”) features – with vP-pied-piping, this is mostly the case; with DP-raising, it will often not be (although cf. DPs associated with relative and complement clauses, etc.). For our purposes, what is important is that it is not incoherent to view DP-raising as an operation which “qualifies” as both [+pied-piping] and [-pied-piping]. Spec pied-piping grammars may thus admit optionality in respect of how T’s EPP-feature is satisfied; and spec pied-piping languages alone have a choice of ways of satisfying T’s features since (a) the non-pied-piping languages by definition do not have a pied-piping option and (b) in head pied-piping languages, movement of the DP in SpecvP would not amount to movement of the Goal (or of a category containing the Goal), and so is not possible, while movement of just the head-Goal would result in surface strings not attested in the input and, as such, does not constitute the kind of operation conservative acquirers would be expected to postulate (cf. Biberauer & Richards 2006, Note 14).

B&R propose extending the domain within which this analysis has been said to hold, and applying it also to the case where, in terms of (4), X is v, YP is VP and Z is, as in the previous case, an element with D-features. For the same reason as in the case just described, this means that a v with D-features may attract a VP into its specifier in order to agree with the D-element contained in the VP and in order to satisfy its EPP-feature. Again, as in the previous case, wherever the targeted D-element is a DP, two options present themselves for the satisfaction of v’s EPP-feature: VP-raising or DP-raising, i.e. pied-piping or exclusive movement of the Goal (“stranding”). B&R thus postulate an essential parallelism between the options available for the satisfaction of T and v’s D-features: in both cases, the system with the [+pied-piping] setting of the size parameter permits either pied-piping of respectively vP and VP or, alternatively, DP-movement.

B&R’s central proposals are, first, that OE was initially a uniformly spec pied-piping language in the sense just described. As such, it allowed optional pied-piping wherever T and v probed a phrasal D-element, thus giving rise in the TP-domain to a choice between subject DP-movement to SpecTP or vP-movement to this position, and, in the vP-domain, to either object DP-movement to SpecvP or VP-movement to this position. B&R argue that this optional pied-piping gave rise to much of the attested word-order variation in OE. Their analysis therefore provides an account for much of what was previously seen as theoretically inexplicable variation in grammars (i.e. “true optionality”) or grammars in competition (Kroch, 1989; Pintzuk 1991) in terms of a single grammar, one which freely allows both pied-piping and stranding movements to achieve the satisfaction of its EPP-requirements. In terms of this analysis surface head-final orders represent one kind of derived order, alongside various kinds of head-initial and mixed orders (see Kayne 1994, Zwart 1997). Henceforth, the term head-final (without scare quotes) should thus be taken to refer to surface head-final order.

B&R’s second proposal is that the loss of the optionality and its replacement with just the non-pied-piping/stranding variant, i.e. subject DP-movement to SpecTP and object DP-movement to SpecvP (which was later lost), underlies much of the word-order change observed in the ME period (cf. Biberauer & Roberts 2006a,c for more detailed consideration of the non-syntactic factors that led to the respective pied-piping options being – at different stages in English’s history – insufficiently robustly attested for an optionality-permitting grammar to be postulated by acquirers, and the role that Berwick’s (1985) Subset Principle appears to have played in determining the loss of the relevant pied-piping options and the consequent move to a “smaller” grammar.). Focusing specifically on the TP-domain, the proposal is that a combination of system-internal and external (i.e. input) considerations led to the vP-movement (i.e. spec pied-piping) that was optionally available as a means of satisfying T’s EPP-feature (by pied-piping a D-element into SpecTP) becoming unavailable as a means of EPP-satisfaction by Late ME. DP-movement (i.e. spec-raising) therefore became the only mechanism via which this feature could be satisfied, with the result that it became crucial that SpecvP always be filled by a raisable nominal. Assuming expletives to be merged in SpecvP (cf. Richards & Biberauer 2005), one of the consequences of this development would be that expletives became obligatory at the point at which vP-raising was lost, whereas they would only optionally have been present prior to this change as there was always an alternative source of D-features present in vP (see Richards & Biberauer 2005, Biberauer & Richards 2006 and Biberauer & Roberts 2005, 2006a,c for more detailed discussion). So we see that B&R’s analysis relates the rise of TP-expletives to word-

order change: assuming auxiliaries are merged in or moved to T and non-finite verbs remain inside vP, vP-movement will give rise to V-Aux orders in non-V2 (i.e. non-root) contexts until such time as DP-raising, and thus also obligatory TP-expletives, became established as the sole means of satisfying T’s EPP-feature. B&R thus predict that non-root V-Aux and a variety of other apparent reflexes of a head-final grammar and additionally also “anomalous” phenomena like Stylistic Fronting will decrease and ultimately disappear as TP-expletives emerge and ultimately become obligatory (see § 3.1 below).

Although interesting and non-obvious, B&R’s prediction does not conform to the standard view of the chronology of syntactic changes in ME: it is usually said that V-Aux orders disappear in Early ME, whilst it is clear that TP-expletives only consistently appear from around 1400, becoming obligatory in the mid-15th century (cf. Haeberli 1999a, Williams 2000, Ingham 2001). In the next section, we present the standard view of the status in ME of V-Aux orders and head-final orders more generally and then propose an alternative account of the changes in ME that leads to a reconsideration of the data that is in fact consistent with B&R’s conclusions.

3. The loss of residual head-final orders in Middle English

In work on ME word-order change it is usually assumed that OV orders disappear in Early ME, despite the fact that examples of this order do occur – albeit at increasingly low frequencies – until Late ME. Since it has influentially been argued that the principal VP-related word-order changes took place in the 12th century (see Canale 1978, van Kemenade 1987, Lightfoot 1991), the residual head-final orders of Late ME have generally been analysed as resulting from some special process(es). In this section, we will argue two things. First, we show that one acknowledged case of “special syntax” in ME, Stylistic Fronting, in fact represents a straightforward case of vP-fronting to SpecTP of the kind introduced in the previous section which therefore requires no further stipulations. We will in fact suggest that reflexes of vP-fronting are generally more common in later ME than has usually been thought. Second, we will focus on structures that are traditionally viewed as biclausal, namely those involving modals, and show how these also played a role in shoring up the ME acquirer’s analysis of ME as a system permitting both DP- and vP-raising in order to satisfy T’s EPP-requirements.

3.1. Stylistic Fronting

A good recent example of the standard line of reasoning on residual head-final orders is Kroch & Taylor (2000) who point out, in a discussion of a group of 13 th-century prose texts, that “superficially INFL-final [i.e. Aux-final – MTB/IGR] clauses often have another possible analysis; that is, they can also be analysed as instances of stylistic fronting” (138). Stylistic Fronting (Styl-F) is an operation first observed in Icelandic by Maling (1990) which involves the fronting of a participle, adverb or negation. The principal condition on Styl-F is that there must be a subject-gap. Styl-F is also subject to an Accessibility Hierarchy which states that negation takes precedence over adverbs which in turn take precedence over participles and other verbal elements. The following example illustrates Styl-F in Icelandic:

(6) Honum mætti standa á sama, hvað sagt væri um hannHim might stand on same what said was about him “It might be all the same to him what was said about him.” (Maling (1990)’s (5), Kroch & Taylor’s (7), p.139)

This is an example of a subject relative; hence the subject-gap condition on Styl-F is met by wh-movement. The participle sagt has been fronted to a position which immediately precedes the inflected auxiliary. Note that other VP-internal material – here the PP um hann (“about him”) – remains in its normal position, given that Icelandic is a VO language.

Here are some examples of Styl-F in ME, from Kroch & Taylor (2000: 139) and Trips (2002: 306, 123):

(7) a. auriche manne ðe i-boreen scal bienevery man that saved shall be“every man who shall be saved”(CMVICESI, 63.695; Kroch & Taylor’s (8), p.139)

b. and he besohte at gode þat naht ne scolde reininand he sought of Gode that not NEG should rain“And he asked of God that it should not rain.”(CMVICESI,143.1787; Kroch & Taylor’s (9), p. 139)

c. wiþþ all þatt lac þatt offredd wass biforenn Cristess with all that sacrifice that offered was before Christ’s comecoming

“with all the sacrifice that was made before Christ’s coming”(Ormulum I.55.525; Trips’s (123), p. 306)

The subordinate clause in (7a) is a subject relative and so the subject-gap condition is met in the same way as in (6). Here the adjectival participle i-boreen has been fronted to a position immediately preceding scal. We treat premodals like scal as restructuring verbs in ME, i.e. potential triggers of Verb Raising (VR) and Verb Projection Raising (VPR), in line with the standard treatment of these verbs in Continental West Germanic languages (cf. Evers 1975, Haegeman & van Riemsdijk 1986, Rutten 1991, Hinterhölzl 1999, etc.; see §3.2). Following Lightfoot (1979), Roberts (1985) and Warner (1993), we assume that these elements only developed their characteristic Modern English auxiliary properties after the ME period (see §4.3). The non-finite auxiliary bien follows scal; this is the typical position for infinitives in the complement of restructuring verbs. In (7b), the subject gap is constituted by an apparently “missing” expletive and the fronted element is the negative adverb naht (“not”), while the gap in the passivised relative in (7c) is similar to that in (7a), with the passive participle offredd (“offered”) representing the fronted element in this case.

There have been several proposals concerning the nature of Styl-F. An influential recent proposal is that proposed in Holmberg (2000), where it is argued that Styl-F is an operation which places the phonological matrix of an arbitrary constituent in SpecIP. This operation is subject to a locality condition which requires the nearest

available phonological matrix to move to SpecIP. The Accessibility Hierarchy originally noticed by Maling (1990) can then be derived, assuming that negation is structurally closer to I than vP-adverbs which in turn are closer than VP-internal verbal material (see Holmberg 2000: 462 – 3 for details).

Kroch & Taylor (137ff.) propose reducing surface V-Aux orders to cases of Styl-F. They observe (138) that treating all clauses with V-Aux order and a subject gap as cases of Styl-F has the consequence that the number of “true” V-Aux orders, i.e. where there is no subject gap and therefore in Kroch & Taylor’s terms less possibility of a Styl-F analysis, in the texts they look at is considerably reduced: from 212 to 171, i.e. by just under 20%. Furthermore, they follow Platzack (1988) in considering that Styl-F may also be allowed in clauses with subject pronouns, assuming that pronouns in ME create a subject gap by cliticising to C. This further reduces the total number of “true” V-Aux orders to 40, i.e. to roughly 19% of the original total of 212.

Kroch & Taylor’s figures are, however, suspect on several grounds. First, the main reduction (from 80% of surface V-Aux orders to 19%) depends on the assumption that subject pronouns undergo cliticisation to C. However, this putative subject-cliticisation operation is dubious for several reasons (Falk 1993 raises some of these objections as well). First, it is unclear whether subject cliticisation applies in narrow syntax or in PF; if it applies in PF then it does not create the requisite subject gap in the syntax which Styl-F requires (cf. Ackema & Neeleman 2003, who argue that the exactly comparable subject-cliticisation operation in Dutch is a PF-operation). Second, subject cliticisation would involve right-adjunction of the subject pronoun to C, an operation which violates Kayne’s Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), and, as such, may even be suspect as a PF-operation (see i.a. Moro 2000 and Chomsky, 2001: 37ff., on the idea that the LCA may be a PF linearisation requirement). Third, we are unaware of any current spoken language in which Styl-F is facilitated by subject cliticisation; Icelandic, notably, seems to lack subject cliticisation. Fourth, counting clauses with subject pronouns as involving Styl-F skews the data since subject pronouns are, for discourse-informational reasons, much more frequent than non-pronominal subjects in most kinds of connected written text, and so the incidence of putative “Styl-F” is artificially inflated by Kroch & Taylor’s relaxing of the subject-gap requirement. We therefore suggest that Kroch & Taylor’s conclusion that only 19% of surface V-Aux orders really are V-Aux orders is not warranted. Instead, if we count the examples with subject pronouns as not involving Styl-F, then the number of V-Aux clauses in the texts Kroch & Taylor looked at returns to 171, a not insignificant number.

What we would now like to argue is that all instances of surface V-Aux ordering, including the apparently superficially “clear” cases of Styl-F and other instances of surface head-final order, should, in fact, be viewed as exponents of a single, formerly fully productive, but in ME ever more residually active operation generating surface head-final order. Following B&R, we propose that putative cases of Styl-F and head-final ordering more generally in fact involve vP-movement to SpecTP. In these terms, the TP inside the relative clause in an example like (7c) has the structure given in (8):1

(8) [TP [vP tOp offredd ] [T’ [T wass ] tvP tOp biforenn Cristess come ]]

This structure requires several comments. The most important aspect of it for the purposes of this paper is that vP, containing the string tOp offredd, has raised from its first-merged position following [T wass ] to SpecTP. This operation takes place in order to satisfy T’s D-oriented EPP-feature. As we saw in the previous section, B&R

argue that in ME the pied-piping option for satisfying T’s EPP-requirements was still available. In the case under consideration, the D-feature is borne by the passive participle offredd, which we, following Baker, Johnson & Roberts (1989), assume to contain the “absorbed” logical subject (cf. also Richards & Biberauer 2005).

The PP biforenn Cristess come was also a constituent of VP (and therefore of vP). However, it does not appear before the auxiliary in the surface string because at this stage the pied-piping option was no longer available for v. The object is extracted under relativisation, which we have indicated by tOp; the leftmost occurrence of this symbol marks its successive-cyclic movement through SpecvP.2 The PP therefore remains within the VP throughout the vP phase of the derivation, and it surfaces in final position owing to the effects of the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC; see Chomsky 2000: 108)):

(9) In a phase α with head H, the domain of H (i.e. its complement – MTB/IGR) is not accessible to operations outside α, only H and its edge are accessible to such operations.

For our purposes, the relevant phases α are CP and vP. The heads H are therefore C and v. Chomsky suggests that the PIC holds because the derivation proceeds by phases, with material in the domain of the head of each phase being transferred to the PF and LF interfaces at the end of that phase. Such material thereby becomes inaccessible to the formal mechanisms of the syntactic component. The consequence of this for (9) is that the PP biforenn Cristess come is transferred to the PF-interface when the derivation completes the vP phase and, as such, is not spelled out as part of the moved vP, but in the final position it occupied at the end of the vP phase. We have indicated this in (8) by presenting the content of the PP in outline font (the same is true for the trace/copy of the constituent extracted under relativisation, although obviously in this case there is no visible effect on word order; see Note 2).

The structure in (8) is straightforwardly derivable on B&R’s assumptions about the movement-triggering features associated with T: it is simply the output of a derivation in which T’s EPP-feature has been satisfied by vP-raising (i.e. spec pied-piping). This analysis generalises to all cases which Kroch & Taylor identify as Styl-F, and additionally also provides a non-stipulative account of the pronoun-containing structures that they are obliged to analyse as involving the dubious cliticisation operation discussed above: in our terms, V-Aux orders with pronominal subjects are derived in exactly the same way as the more conventional Styl-F cases just discussed, namely via vP-raising with vP in this case containing the subject pronoun in addition to the non-finite verb.

A further advantage of the approach advocated here is that it facilitates a very simple analysis of V-Aux structures that are very evidently not amenable to a Styl-F analysis, i.e. of the V-Aux structures that Kroch & Taylor acknowledge to be the bona fide output of a head-final grammar. Consider (10) in this connection:

(10) er þanne þe heuene oðer eorðe shapen werebefore that heaven or earth created were“before heaven or earth were created”

(Trinity Homilies, 133.1776; Kroch & Taylor’s (4a), p. 137)

Examples like this clearly do not feature a subject gap, and the overt subject is not a pronoun, but a coordinated DP, i.e. a subject that cannot plausibly be said to have

cliticised to C in order to create a subject gap. As such, this type of V-Aux example would not seem to be amenable to a Styl-F analysis and would therefore have to be viewed as the output of a “genuine” head-final grammar. On our approach, by contrast, the occurrence of structures like (10) is completely straightforward and would be expected to fall out from the same (single) grammar that gives rise to “Styl-F” structures such as those in (7). The representation of the embedded clause in (10) is shown in (11):

(11) [CP þe [TP [vP heuene oðer eorðe shapen theuene oðer eorðe] [T’ [T were] tvP ]]]

As noted above, this kind of example must, in Kroch & Taylor’s terms, be treated as generated by the head-final grammar competing with the head-initial grammar that is active in other cases. But the existence of a head-final grammar means that at least some of the Styl-F cases are in fact indeterminate for language acquirers, since they could be treated either as the output of a head-final system (cf. our proposal, which could, of course, be translated into more traditional head-final terms) or as the “special” output of a head-initial system (cf. the usual analysis of Styl-F in Icelandic). Since we do not assume competing grammars, our approach does not allow this indeterminacy. On our analysis, the logical-object DP heuene oðer eorðe in (11) raises under passivisation to SpecvP. Following and updating Baker, Johnson & Roberts’ (1989: 222) proposal, we take it that passive v is not in fact defective3, but rather has a D-feature and therefore may have a D-oriented EPP feature which triggers movement of this DP into its specifier (this feature is satisfied by successive-cyclic movement of tOp in (8)). The entire vP is then fronted to SpecTP, giving the observed surface order. This is thus a further instance of pied-piping satisfying T’s EPP-feature. It must be the case that different features of the moved DP Agree with v and T’s D-features; perhaps, given the facts of Romance past-participle agreement (Kayne 2000, chapters 2 and 3), Agree involves gender and number features at the v-level and person at the T-level (cf. also Chomsky 2000: 125). This would thus be a case of partial feature-matching between the Probes T and v and the Goal DP heuene oðer eorðe. In a Germanic language like ME, v’s φ-features have no visible morphological consequences, but we propose here that it may in fact be possible to observe their syntactic effects in examples like (10).

We thus have a straightforward general account for V-Aux orders in ME, which does away with Styl-F as a separate option, reducing it to another case of (remnant) vP-movement to SpecTP. We have also shown that this view entails that “genuine” (i.e. OE-like, systematically derived) V-Aux structures were more frequent in ME than is usually thought.

Our analysis also allows us to account for a number of other fairly well-known anomalies in ME word order. First, we can account for what is often seen as Styl-F of the negative element noht/naht (also spelt in various other ways). This is illustrated in (7b) above. In this example, vP containing naht and (possibly) a quasi-expletive null subject DP has moved to SpecTP of the clause þat naht ne scolde reinin. As mentioned in Note 1, this is a verb-raising construction with the infinitive reinin moved to the T-position of the infinitival TP complement to scolde. We also find examples of putative Styl-F of negation where there is no auxiliary of any kind present, showing that the phenomenon is quite independent of auxiliaries:

(12) Thairwith he nocht growitat-this he not shrunk

“At this he did not shrink (in fear)”(c1448: Richard Holland The Buke of the Howlat, 7; cited in Gray 1985: 152, Roberts 1993: 252)

Second, various kinds of adverbs can be pied-piped to SpecTP along with vP.4 In a subordinate clause, this gives rise to the order complementiser – (subject) – adverb –verb, as illustrated in (13):

(13) a. For many are that never kane halde the ordyre of lufefor many are that never can hold the ordure of love(14th century: Rolle The Bee and the Stork, 20-21; cited in Mossé 1968; Kroch 1989: 227, Roberts 1993: 254)

b. þat he neure mare sculde cuman utthat he never more should come out“that he shouldn’t come out any more”(ChronE (Plummer) 1140.48; Fischer et al 2000:243)

These orders have often been seen as problematic for the widely held and otherwise quite well-motivated idea that ME was like Modern French in having V-to-T movement in finite clauses (see Roberts 1985, 1993, Pollock 1989). In Modern French, orders of this kind are impossible (whether the subject is pronominal or not; see Pollock 1989, Kayne 2000). If they are derived by vP-movement in ME prior to roughly 1450, then, as long as French is analysed as a “spec-raising” language in the sense defined in §2, we see why ME and French differ in this respect.

Third, Haeberli (1999a: 409ff.) points out that until approximately 1450, ME allowed adverbs to intervene between the complementiser and the subject, as in (13):

(14) a. And of thyse two foloweth as a corelary ye thirde trouthand of these two follows as a corollary the third truth“And the third truth follows as a corollary from these two”(Fitzja, B6R.220; Haeberli’s (25d), p. 410)

b. and soo is geyt þe terme of fifty gere wytt us þe ger of gracseand so is yet the period of fifty years with us the year of grace“And so the period of fifty years is for us the year of grace”(Siege, 70.17; Haeberli’s (25e), p. 410)

Again, we can treat the adverb as contained within vP which undergoes movement to SpecTP in these cases. The fact that the frequency of this order declines fairly sharply around 1450 (see Tables 10 and 11 in Haeberli 1999a: 409-410, and Haeberli 2000). As Haeberli (1999b) shows in his survey of this order across a range of Germanic languages, the order in (14) is possible just in those languages which Richards & Biberauer (2005) identify as “spec pied-piping” languages as defined in §2.

Fourth, the existence of unambiguously in-situ subjects and sentences lacking overt expletives in SpecTP provide further evidence for vP-raising to SpecTP. These phenomena are illustrated in (15):

(15) a. And in þis tyme were sent writtis þorowoute þe londand in this time were sent writs throughout the country

“And in this time, writs were sent throughout the country”(Capgrave Chronicles 213.72; Haeberli’s (29a), p. 420)

b. And in alle the world is no gretter treson …and in all the world is no greater treason …“And in all the world there is no great treason …”(Prologues, Caxton 12.15; Haeberli’s (23a), p.406)

Finally, it is worth pointing out that very many simple sentences in ME would have been compatible with a vP-fronting analysis. This is true of V2 sentences generally. Thus, for example, any sentence with the order Adverb – Verb – Subject – Object was amenable to either of the two analyses given in (16):

(16)a. [CP Adv [C V ] [TP [vP Su [v’ [v (V+v) ] ] [T (V+v)] [VP (V) Ob ] ]]

b. [CP Adv [C V ] [TP Su [T (V+v)] [vP (Su) [v’ [v (V+v) ] [VP (V) Ob ] ]]]

(We do not indicate the trace of the Adverb, as its position depends on the type of adverb, which is not essential for the point being made here). These structures will always be ambiguous since there will never be any overt material to be sent to Spellout in T, given the T-to-C movement operation operative in the derivation of V2-clauses. When V2 was lost (c1450, according to van Kemenade 1987, Haeberli 1999a Fischer et al 2000), this ambiguity disappeared, which played a crucial role in the loss of vP-fronting (this idea is further developed in Biberauer & Roberts 2006a,b, and Biberauer 2006).

As noted in the introduction to this paper, B&R’s analysis predicts a connection between the loss of surface head-final-type orders and the development of obligatory overt expletives in SpecTP, as well as obligatory subject-raising to this position: as soon as vP-raising is lost as a possible means of satisfying T’s EPP-requirements, subject-/expletive-raising remains as the only available mechanism to achieve EPP-satisfaction. We know from the work of researchers like Breivik (1990), Haeberli (1999a, Williams (2000) and Ingham (2001) that expletives were still very commonly omitted during the Early ME period, particularly in clause-internal position (cf. Biberauer 2004). In terms of B&R’s analysis, this possibility correlates directly with the availability of vP-raising, a mechanism which would, as we have seen, also be expected to systematically give rise to surface head-final orderings as well as the orders and ambiguities that we have discussed in this section. We have now seen that there is a range of phenomena present throughout the ME period up until roughly 1450 which could support the postulation of a grammar with vP-movement, despite the relatively low frequency of V-Aux and OV order. Additionally, there are a number of high-frequency structures (e.g. V2 clauses) which are ambiguous in respect of the manner in which T’s EPP-requirements are met. Taken together, therefore, we conclude that B&R’s optionality-based proposal is indeed empirically supported.

B&R’s analysis also predicts that surface head-final orderings and Styl-F phenomena will no longer surface once expletives and, more generally, the kind of “raising-to-subject” phenomena characteristic of Modern English, become obligatory (i.e. mid-15th century), and that the disappearance of these orders is connected to the loss of V2 (cf. Biberauer & Roberts 2006a, b). This prediction is borne out, not just in Modern English but, significantly, also in other Germanic languages which have

previously been said to have permitted either V-Aux orderings or Styl-F or both and now systematically require DP-raising to SpecTP (cf. the Mainland Scandinavian languages, as discussed in i.a. Holmberg & Platzack 1995; see also Biberauer 2004, 2006): in all cases, it is possible to connect the unavailability of V-Aux ordering and/or Styl-F to the fact that these languages presently require DP-raising and only DP-raising (i.e. spec-raising) to satisfy T’s EPP-requirements. In all cases, V2 has survived in matrix clauses, thereby guaranteeing the SpecTP-related ambiguity noted above; crucially, however, all of these languages underwent ME-style loss of V2 in embedded clauses, with the consequence that the relevant ambiguities were no longer attested in embedded contexts: it became clear that embedded T’s EPP-requirements are satisfied via DP-raising. Significantly, this embedded change appears to have affected the analysis of matrix clauses, with the establishment of an exclusively spec-/DP-raising EPP-satisfaction mechanism in that context “biasing” the grammar generally in favour of DP-raising, i.e. the loss of the vP-fronting option. If this is correct, this development would seem to argue against Lightfoot’s (1991) Degree Zero Learnability proposals (cf. also §4.2 for discussion of a further instance of change which appears to have spread from embedded to matrix contexts).

3.2. Verb (Projection) Raising Alternations

In this section, we look at so-called Verb (Projection) Raising (V(P)R) triggered by premodals, the forerunners of the modern English modals which are traditionally thought to have started out as elements selecting a clausal complement, i.e. to have occurred in biclausal structures. As first pointed out in van Kemenade (1987: 55ff.), modal, causative and perception verbs were optional V(P)R (i.e. restructuring) triggers in OE, a state of affairs that entailed that the infinitival Vs selected by these verbs could follow their selectors, as illustrated in (17):5

(17) a. ... þe æfre on gefeohte his handa wolde afylan who ever in battle his hands would defile

“... whoever would defile his hands in battle”(Ælfric’s Lives of Saints 25.858; Pintzuk’s (62), p. 102)

b. … þæt hi mihton swa bealdlice Godes geleafan bodian that they could so boldly God’s faith preach “that they could preach God’s faith so boldly”(ÆCHom I, 16.232.23; cited in Fischer et al 2000: 156)

Although it is generally agreed that the OE (and ME) modals were main verbs, modal-containing examples consistently feature in discussions about the location of Infl (medial or final) and, importantly in the context of the present discussion, of Aux relative to V. We will follow this practice here as we assume that the OE and ME modals (exceptionally among the class of finite verbs; see §4.3) underwent raising to T and we also do not exclude the possibility that some of these verbs may in fact be merged in the T-domain (see §2 above and §4 below). What we would like to show now is what role these verbs played in the loss of vP-raising and the associated change in the nature of SpecTP in ME. We concentrate on this case to the exclusion of aspectual auxiliaries with participial complements since it is less clear that the latter consistently involved biclausal structures during the ME period.

We consider a VR structure of the kind illustrated in (17a) by way of illustration:6

(18) TP ri

vP2 T’ ru T vP2

ru DP-Subj v’

ru vP1 v’

ru v VP ru

VR TPINF

rpvP1 T’

ru T vP1

ty V+v T

where the vP labelled vP1 for expository convenience has the following internal structure (bracketed elements are those which have undergone movement out of vP1):

(18’) vP1

ru DP v’ PRO ri

VP v’ ru ru (V) DP-Obj (V+v) (VP)

We are assuming that the complement of a restructuring verb is a TP (cf. i.a. Wurmbrand 2001 and Lee-Schoenfeld 2005 for arguments in favour of the well-established idea that restructuring complements are “smaller” than other clausal complements, and Roberts 1997: 412 for arguments that such complements are larger than VP in OE). In the context of the theoretical framework we are assuming here, the specific assumption is that restructuring complements are TPs headed by a “defective” T, i.e. one that is not selected by C (cf. B&R 14ff., Chomsky 2004, 2005). For our present purposes, this idea has the important consequence that the material in the restructuring complement is not sent to Spellout prior to merger of VR, the way material in the clausal complements of non-restructuring verbs is (owing to the PIC; cf. (9) above). This accounts for the “clause union” effects commonly associated with restructuring structures. Let us see how our analysis of V(P)R works in more detail.

The derivation of the VR order in OE (17a) proceeds by the following steps. First, V moves to v inside the vP of the embedded clause. We take this to be a standard and possibly universal operation (cf. Marantz 1997, Chomsky 2004: 122); it certainly holds for all periods of earlier English (cf. Zwart 2005 on the non-adjacency of V-Obj

in earlier English). Second, the remnant VP moves to SpecvP (cf. the fact that not just the object, his handa, but additionally also a locative/situative PP, on gefeohte, which may reasonably be thought of as having been merged inside VP, surfaces preverbally in (17a)).7 Third, V+v moves to T in the infinitival clause. This operation is the key to deriving the Aux-V order here. We take it that this infinitive-movement is triggered by a selectional property of the main-clause verb VR. Specifically, we propose the relevant selectional property to be the nature of the (defective) TP that VR selects (cf. Evers 1975 and Haegeman & van Riemsdijk 1986 on VPR and the verbs that trigger it, and Kayne 1991, Roberts 1997, on the connection between restructuring and infinitive-movement in Romance). We argue that this selectional property also accounts for the absence of the infinitive marker to in the complements to these verbs: since the selected T triggers infinitive-movement to itself, there is no position for the infinitival T-marker (cf. the often-noted absence of zu or te in such complements in German and Dutch respectively).8 The next step in the derivation of the VR structure in (17a) is then remnant vP movement to the specifier of the selected T (this is another instance of “pied-piping” satisfying an EPP-feature); we return to the consequences of employing the DP-raising/non-pied-piping mode of EPP-satisfaction in § 4.2 below, but note here only that we do not exclude it and that structures derived via this mode of EPP-satisfaction (i.e. “pseudo” modern English-like S-Aux-V-O structures) are indeed attested in both OE and ME (cf. B&R for further discussion). Returning to the derivation of (17a): following merger of VR and V-to-v raising, the remnant vP is raised to the specifier of the matrix vP under the influence of matrix v’s EPP-feature, and the (matrix) external argument is merged. Following completion of the vP phase, the material in v’s complement (thus, crucially, the embedded V which has undergone raising to infinitival T) is sent to Spellout, whereafter matrix T is merged. At this point, the same two options that apply in the monoclausal environments discussed above are once again available: either DP- or vP can undergo raising to Spec-TP. Note that VR structures like (17a) are, like the V2 structures discussed in §3.1 above, ambiguous as to whether DP- or vP-raising has in fact taken place in this context: either raising of the vP þe æfre on gefeohte his handa or raising of just the DP þe æfre will give the surface order S-O-Aux-V exhibited by (17a) (where “Aux” signifies the restructuring verb, VR in (18)).

Like the V2 structures discussed in §3.1 above, VR structures therefore constitute ambiguous input in respect of the manner in which matrix T’s EPP-requirements are satisfied. The same is also (potentially; see below) true of VPR structures, which, on our analysis, differ from VR structures only in respect of the raising-to-matrix-SpecvP step, which does not take place in VPR structures because matrix v in this case lacks the EPP-feature present in the VR case (cf. B&R for discussion of the nature of the EPP-features associated with OE and ME v; for present purposes, it suffices to note that B&R assume that v was not consistently associated with an EPP-feature at any stage in ME); because there is no raising to SpecvP, only the external argument DP (and matrix vP-related adverbs, where present) are available for raising to matrix Spec-TP. Ignoring structures containing matrix vP-related adverbs, VPR structures are therefore ambiguous in the same was as their VR counterparts. Both VR and VPR structures would thus have constituted points of ambiguity in the input available to the OE and ME child, points of ambiguity that, we believe, may well have played an important role in allowing children to continue postulating optionality-permitting grammars until approximately the mid-15th century when the combined weight of evidence in favour of a grammar that permitted only one of the original options (i.e.

DP-raising) became too great. We will consider this latter point in more detail in §4 below.

3.3. Conclusion

In this section, we have seen that residual head-final structures and also various other structures that are usually regarded as anomalous in the ME context can be given a unified analysis as the output of a single grammar, one which licenses both DP- and vP-raising to satisfy T’s EPP-requirements. Specifically in connection with the two kinds of V-Aux order usually thought to coexist in ME – Styl-F and a residue of “genuine” V-Aux orders reflecting the OE system – we have shown that a unified analysis in terms of vP-raising eliminates numerous problems associated with more traditional ‘grammars in competition’-based analyses. Additionally, a vP-raising analysis facilitates an understanding of various coterminous changes that are usually viewed as independent and unrelated, i.e. as accidentally coterminous. We have also shown that various ME structures, including simple verb-containing V2 and V(P)R structures, would have been ambiguous in respect of the manner in which T’s EPP-requirements are satisfied, with the result that the learner could interpret these structures either way, with other evidence in the input therefore proving crucial in maintaining the optionality-licensing grammar. Next, we turn to some of the consequences of what we have proposed here.

4. Some consequences

The analysis of V(P)R in ME put forward in the previous section has three interesting consequences. These concern the nature of the order subject–modal–negative object–infinitive in 15th-century English, the ultimate loss of vP-movement to SpecTP, and the reanalysis of modal verbs (a subclass of the class VR mentioned in the previous section; see van Kemenade 1993). We now describe each of these in turn.

4.1. OV orders with modals in 15th-century English

In terms of our analysis, we can account for van der Wurff (1997, 1999) and Ingham’s (2002, 2003) observation that in 15th-century English, the only surviving OV orders involving non-pronominal objects are of the general type subject–modal–negative object–infinitive as illustrated in (19):

(19) þei shuld no meyhir hauethey should no mayor have (Capgrave Chronicles 199.6; cited in Fischer et al 2000: 163)

As we mentioned in the previous section, modals are the principal exponents of the class VR. We would therefore expect “clause union” effects in the complements of modals, with the result that objects and other infinitival vP-material can surface before the matrix verb (VR). Note, however, that VP-raising to SpecvP had already been reanalysed as object-movement by the ME period (i.e. a variety of factors, discussed in more detail in Biberauer & Roberts 2006a,c had obscured the input justifying the postulation of the pied-piping option, with the result that the operation of the Subset

Principle had led to the stranding option having become the norm9). Thus the analysis discussed in the preceding section actually only predicts the availability of the lower-clause object to the left of VR during ME. Note further, though, that object-movement became restricted to negative or quantified DPs in later ME (cf. van der Wurff and Ingham, op. cit.). B&R analyse this as a restriction on the nature of v’s object-movement-triggering D-feature: whereas D on v was associated with a movement-triggering EPP-feature during OE, a sub-feature of D (Neg) bore this feature during the later ME period (cf. also Biberauer & Roberts 2006a). A structure like (18) was thus reanalysed in ME as (20):

(20) TP ri

vP2 T’ ru T vP2

ru DP-Subj v’

ru vP1 v’

ru v VP ru

VR TPINF

rpvP1 T’

ru T vP1

ty V+v T

Already sent to Spellout: VP ri

(V) (DP-Obj)

where vP1 has the following internal structure (bracketed elements once again being those that have undergone movement out of vP1 or, at the appropriate point, been sent to Spellout and material which is rendered inaccessible by the PIC is once again given in outline font):

(20’) vP1 ru

DP v’ PRO ri DP-Obj v’

ru (V+v) (VP)

In (20) we have object-movement to SpecvP, triggered by the specialised D-feature on v, and vP-movement to SpecTP in the lower clause. Exactly the kind of structure illustrated in (19) is thus predicted, given (a) the analysis of V(P)R put forward in the previous section, (b) the idea that former remnant VP-movement was reanalysed as object-movement in Early ME, and (c) the idea that only negative objects could undergo object-movement by Late ME.

A question that arises at this point is what would prevent the matrix v from also having the relevant type of D-feature. This would attract the object into the main clause, giving, other things being equal, the unattested order subject – object – auxiliary – verb. We propose that these orders are not found for an independent reason, namely the fact that in finite clauses V raises to T at this period (see §4.3 and also Pollock 1989, Roberts 1985, 1993, 1999). Hence the finite verb (VR or auxiliary) will always precede the raised object. We therefore do not absolutely exclude this possibility, but conclude that, in general, it has no effect on surface word order and certainly does not give rise to subject–object–auxiliary–verb orders.

In fact, there is some evidence for object-raising into the higher clause from the rare examples where VR is also non-finite, giving rise to two infinitive clauses. One such example is given in Beukema & van der Wurff (2000):

(21) ... so foul þat þou schalt nou3hht elles mowe se so foul that thou shalt nought else may(infin) see

þerynne bot fylþehede and wrecchednesse therein but foulness and wretchedness“so filthy that you will not be able to see anything else in it but foulness and wretchedness”

(The Fyve Wyttes, p. 14,1.28ff.; cited in Beukema & van der Wurff 2000: 86)

This is exactly predicted by our analysis.

A further point should be mentioned in this connection. It is well–known that some modals were defective in argument structure in ME (see Warner 1983, 1993), and that the reanalysis of modals involved the loss of argument structure (Lightfoot 1979, Roberts 1985, 1993, Roberts & Roussou 2003). It is therefore possible that, by Late ME, at least some members of VR were associated with a defective v, one which lacks the relevant D-feature by virtue of its lack of argument structure. There is some indication that v associated with modals could be defective in ME, from examples with what appears to be a quirky dative subject:

(22) hwi mi ouh and hwi me scal iesu crist luuienwhy me ought and why me shall Jesus Christ love(Ancr. R. (EETS 1952) 6.23, Visser 1963-1973, §1712; cited in Roberts 1985: 38)

To the extent that verbs with a quirky dative subject argument resemble unaccusatives (cf. Belletti & Rizzi 1988), this kind of example would feature a defective v in the main clause.

Finally, in order to account for van der Wurff’s observations about the nature of relic OV-orders, we also need to exclude a monoclausal structure in which the object raises, giving SOV order. This can clearly be excluded by appealing to V-movement to T (see §4.3 below) or C, to the extent that the language was still V2 at this point, on

which see Fischer et al (2000: 129ff.): even if negative object shift takes place in this case, its effects will be masked by V-to-T(-to-C) movement.

Hence the analysis we propose correctly predicts that the last OV structures in ME would have presented the surface ordering illustrated in (19) (where the object is not a pronoun; pronominal object shift survived into Early Modern English, as shown in Roberts 1995).

4.2. The loss of vP-movement

The second consequence of the analysis of V(P)R proposed above is that we can see how the structure corresponding to (20) with the type of object that by the 15th century fails to raise (i.e. a non-negative object) led to the loss of vP-raising as a means of satisfying T’s EPP-requirement.

To see how this works, consider the variant of the structure in (20) (which represents the structure of examples like (19)) without object-movement:

(23) TP roDP-Subj T’

riT vP

ru v VP

ru VR TP rp

vP1 T’ ru ruDP (V+v) T (vP1) PRO ty

V+v T

Already sent to Spellout: VP

ri (V) DP-Obj

As in the case of the adverbial PP in (8), the VP indicated in outline here is merged as the complement of the lower v, and thanks to the operation of the PIC (as in Chomsky 2000: 108), this material is sent to Spellout and therefore becomes inaccessible for further operations as soon as the lower vP is completed. Hence, movement of this vP to SpecTP has no effect on the surface position of the object, which remains final. What this means is that the choice between pied-piping vP to the lower SpecTP and exclusively raising the subject to that position, which was operative throughout ME, has absolutely no effect on the surface order of elements, since the only overt material in vP which the PIC allows to be spelled out in its moved position is the subject.

Because of the PIC then, later ME acquirers had no clear evidence in VR-containing contexts to distinguish a derivation involving pied-piping of vP to satisfy T’s EPP-requirement from one in which only the subject moves to satisfy that requirement: as soon as objects do not raise as readily as they used to in OE and

earlier ME, with the only moving objects being negated ones which only move in clauses involving some form of “obscuring” V-movement (cf. §4.1), it becomes much harder to distinguish DP-raising from vP-raising in VR-structures (recall that V does not come into play as an element contained in vP here as it has already been sent to Spellout in accordance with the PIC). It is of course possible that the presence of vP-adverbials or other modifiers might disambiguate the two derivations (see §3.2 above), but in the vast majority of cases, the ambiguity would have been present. We take it that this situation led to the reanalysis of the embedded TP with the structure in (24) (which corresponds to the embedded TP in (23)) as one with the structure in (25):

(24) TPINF rpvP T’

ru ruDP v’ T tvP

PRO ty (v) V+v T

Already sent to Spellout: VP

ru(V) DP-Obj

(25) TPINF

ruDP T’ PRO ru

T vP ty ty

V+v T (DP) v’

(v) VP ru

(V) DP-Obj

We propose that this is how the general option of pied-piping vP to SpecTP was lost in V(P)R infinitival contexts. As the structure in (24) shows, the fronted vP in infinitival contexts may have contained no overt material at all: an empty subject (here indicated as PRO) and the trace/copy of v (cf. Note 9). Recall that VP has already been sent to Spellout, and hence is not realised in the moved position. Given the lack of evidence for vP-movement, the simpler option of DP-movement was preferred (assuming that language acquirers always take the simplest option consistent with the trigger experience, where simplicity is taken to mean the smallest structure consistent with the input – see Clark & Roberts 1993.10).

What we would now like to suggest is that V(P)R structures represent another context in which changes in embedded-clause syntax in fact triggered a change in the matrix-clause system, once again contra Lightfoot (1991). More specifically, we propose that the reanalysis indicated in (24) and (25) was not confined to the TP complements of VR, but that it was actually extended to the matrix TP in VR-containing structures and also to matrix TPs more generally, i.e. also to those in

monoclausal contexts. What we would like to propose is that the fact that DP-raising was the only available option in contexts like (24-25) combined with the pre-existing availability of DP-raising as an option for satisfying T’s EPP-requirements in matrix contexts strongly “biased” learners in favour of taking the DP-raising option wherever they could, especially given the general simplicity preference just mentioned. Ultimately, this therefore led to the loss of vP-movement (cf. B&R 24f). As noted in §3.1, the consequences were that only a DP can satisfy T’s EPP-requirement, and hence expletive insertion became obligatory in contexts where no argumental DP was available for raising (see B&R: ibid. for further discussion). Furthermore, “Styl-F”, as analysed in §3.1, was lost as this possibility crucially depends on the availability of vP-fronting. Our analysis therefore predicts that Styl-F will not be available in languages which require English-style DP-movement in order to satisfy T’s EPP-requirement (i.e. languages which do not at least allow vP-raising as an option). This prediction would seem to be correct as Styl-F was also lost in the Mainland Scandinavian languages, all of which underwent a subject-related change very similar to that which occurred in English (cf. Biberauer 2004, 2006 for further discussion).

4.3. The reanalysis of the modals in ENE

We now turn to the connection between the 15th-century reanalysis described in the previous section and the well-known reanalysis of a subclass of the members of VR, the modals, as auxiliaries in the early 16th century (see Lightfoot 1979, Roberts 1985, 1993, Roberts & Roussou 2003).

Consider again the structure of a sequence containing a modal with an infinitival complement after the reanalysis of (24) as (25). Following Roberts (1993: 262) and Roberts & Roussou (2003: 41 – 42), we take it that the loss of infinitival inflection, which had taken place by 1500, removed the trigger for V-to-T movement in the complement to VR (the assumption is therefore that the infinitival inflection specifically instantiated features that not only entered in an Agree relationship with T, but also had to undergo movement under the influence of an associated EPP-feature; cf. Biberauer & Roberts 2006b for further consideration of the correlation between overtly realised inflection and movement). In this way, the evidence for the lower functional T-v system was removed from the trigger experience of acquirers. Hence (25) was reanalysed in the early 16th century as monoclausal, with the modals merged in v or T and the lexical verb remaining in V – cf. (26):11

(26) TP ru

DP-Subj T’ ru

T vPModal ru

(Subj) v’ ru

v VP ru

V Obj

As pointed out by Roberts (1985, 1993, 1999) and Warner (1997), this reanalysis in turn contributed to the conditions for the loss of (finite) V-to-T movement later in ENE by creating a system in which T could always be realised by an auxiliary. The fact that do underwent the same reanalysis as the modals at about the same time (see Roberts 1993: 292ff.) is important in this connection since it meant that any verb and any tense could be associated with an auxiliary. In other words, the trigger for V-to-T raising was obscured by the development of a class of auxiliaries (Roberts 1999: 293).

Hence we see a clear case of a cascade of changes, each motivated by the one before, leading by late ENE to a radically different syntactic system from that of Early ME. We summarise the relevant changes as follows:

(26) a. Loss of VP-to-SpecvP pied-piping, and its replacement by object-movement (12th century; B&R);

b. Restriction of object-movement to negative objects (ca1400; van der Wurff 1997, 1999 and Ingham 2002, 2003);

c. Loss of vP-to-SpecTP movement, and its replacement by subject-movement/expletive-insertion; and loss of Styl-F (15th

century; B&R and §3.1 above);d. Reanalysis of modals from VR to auxiliaries (ca1525-1550;

Lightfoot 1979, Roberts 1985, Warner 1997);e. Loss of V-to-T movement (ca1575-1600; Kroch 1989, Roberts

1993, Warner 1997).

The Modern English system of do-support emerged in the 17th century and was caused partly by other factors which space considerations do not permit us to consider here (but see Biberauer & Roberts 2006b where we argue that this is connected to the development of contracted negation in n’t; and see also Warner 1997; Biberauer & Roberts 2006a offers a more detailed discussion of an elaborated version of the above cascade.).

5. Conclusion

This paper proposes a new interpretation of the ME data concerning the loss of surface head-final orders, in line with the general proposals in B&R. It entails a completely novel rethinking of the alleged instances of Styl-F in ME, which we consider to be V-Aux orders of a standard, formerly productive type. We also put forward an analysis of Verb (Projection) Raising, which has a number of interesting

consequences for Late ME syntax, notably concerning the last occurrences of OV order, the rise of a canonical subject position and the concomitant loss of Styl-F and the 16th-century reanalysis of earlier V(P)R triggers as auxiliaries. Finally, we were able to propose the sequence of changes in (26). Here we observe an interesting “domino effect” of syntactic changes, which may be of theoretical significance and certainly represents a fine-grained and interesting descriptive picture of the development of a number of aspects of English syntax.

ReferencesAckema, P. and Neeleman, A. 2003. “Context-Sensitive Spell-Out”. Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 681-735.Alexiadou, A., and Anagnostopoulou, E. 1998. “Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-

movement and EPP-checking”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491-539.

Baker, M., Johnson, K. and Roberts, I. 1989. “Passive arguments raised”. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219-251.

Barbosa, P. 1995. Null Subjects. Ph.D. dissertation: MIT.Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. 1988. “Psych verbs and θ-theory”. Natural Language and

Linguistic Theory 6: 291-352.Berwick, R. 1985. The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

Press.Beukema, F. and van der Wurff, W. 2000. “Modals, objects and negation in late

Middle English”. In Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System, Barbiers, S., Beukema, F. and van der Wurff, W. (eds), 75-102. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Biberauer, T. 2003. Verb Second (V2) in Afrikaans: a Minimalist investigation of word-order variation. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Cambridge.

Biberauer, T. 2004. “Reconsidering the EPP and Spec-TP in Germanic”. In Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics (COPiL), L. Astruc and Richards, M. (eds), 1:15-40.

Biberauer, T. 2006. Changes at the edge: tracking the rise of a canonical subject position in Germanic. Paper presented at Edges in Syntax (Nicosia).

Biberauer, T. and D’Alessandro, R. 2006. Syntactic doubling and the encoding of Voice. Paper presented at WCCFL21 (Seattle).

Biberauer, T. and Richards, M. 2005. “Keeping movement motivated: optionality without the tears”. In Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics (COPiL), Chalcraft, F. and Sipetzis, E. (eds.), 2:27-45.

Biberauer, T. and Richards, M. 2006. “True optionality: when the grammar doesn’t mind”. In Minimalist Essays, Boeckx, C. (ed.), 35-67. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2004. “Evidence that V2 involves two movements: a reply to Müller”. In Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics (COPiL), L. Astruc and Richards, M. (eds), 1: 41-62.

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. “Changing EPP parameters in the history of English: accounting for variation and change”. English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 5-46.

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2006a. “Cascading parameter changes: internally driven change in Middle and Early Modern English” Forthcoming in Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: the Rosendal Papers, Eythórsson, T. and Faarlund, J.T. (eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2006b. “Subjects, Tense and Verb Movement in Germanic in Romance”. Forthcoming in Proceedings of GLOW V in Asia.

Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2006c. The Return of the Subset Principle: A Germanic case study. Paper presented at CGSW21 (Santa Cruz).

Borer, H. 1986. “I-Subjects”. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 375-416.Breivik, L. 1990. Existential “there”: a synchronic and diachronic study. Oslo:

Novus Press.Canale, M. 1978. Word order change in Old English: base reanalysis in Generative

Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation: McGill University.Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: the framework”. In Step by step. Essays on

Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds), 89-156. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase”. In Ken Hale: a life in language, Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 2004. “Beyond explanatory adequacy”. In The cartography of syntactic structures, volume 3: structures and beyond, Belletti, A. (ed.), 104-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N. 2005. On Phases. Unpublished Ms.: MIT.Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Clark, R and Roberts, I. 1993. “A computational model of language learnability and

language change”. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 299-345.Evers, A. 1975. The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. Ph.D. dissertation:

University of Utrecht.Falk, C. 1993. Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish. Ph.D. dissertation:

University of Lund.Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W. and van der Wurff, W. (eds). 2000. The

syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gray, D. 1985. The Oxford Book of Late Medieval Prose and Verse. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Haeberli, E. 1999b. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. Synchronic

and diachronic variation in the Germanic languages. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Geneva. Published as: Haeberli, E. 2002. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. Cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Haeberli, E. 1999b. “On the word order ‘XP-Subject’ in the Germanic languages”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 1-36.

Haeberli, E. 2000. “Adjuncts and the syntax of subjects in Old and Middle English”. In Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), 109-131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Haeberli, E. and S. Pintzuk. 2004. Revisiting verb (projection) raising in Old English. Talk presented at the 8th Diachronic Generative Syntax/DiGS Conference (Yale).

Haegeman, L. and van Riemsdijk, H. 1986. “Verb projection raising, scope and the typology of rules affecting verbs”. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 417-466.

Hinterhölzl, R. 1999. Restructuring Infinitives and the theory of complementation. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Southern California.

Holmberg, A. 2000. “Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: how any category can become an expletive”. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445-483.

Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hornstein, N. 1999. Move! A Minimalist theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Ingham, R. 2001. “The structure and function of expletive there in pre-modern

English”. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 213-249.Ingham, R. 2002. “Negated subjects and objects in 15th century non-literary English”.

Language Variation and Change 14: 291-322.Ingham, R. 2003. “The changing status of Middle English OV order: evidence from

two genres”. Sky Journal of Linguistics 16: 75-92.Kayne, R. 1991. “Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO”. Linguistic Inquiry 22:

647-686. Republished as Kayne, R. 2000. “Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO”. In Kayne, R. (ed.), Parameters and Universals, 60-97. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Kayne, R. 2000. Parameters and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press.van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the history of

English. Dordrecht: Foris.van Kemenade, A. 1993. “The history of the English modals: a reanalysis”. Folia

Linguistica Historica 13(1): 143-166. Kroch, A. 1989. “Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change”. Language

Variation and Change 1: 199-244.Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 1994. Remarks on XV/VX alternation in Early Middle

English. Unpublished ms.: University of Pennsylvania.Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 2000. “Verb-object order in Middle English”. In Pintzuk, S.

Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds), Diachronic syntax: models and mechanisms, 132-163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee-Schoenfeld, V. 2005. Beyond Coherence: the syntax of opacity in German. Ph.D. dissertation: University of California at Santa Cruz.

Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lightfoot, D. 1991. How to set parameters: arguments from language change. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Los, B. 1999. Infinitival complementation in Old and Middle English. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

Los, B. 2005. The rise of the TO-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Maling, J. 1990. “Inversion in embedded clauses in Modern Icelandic”. In Maling, J.

and Zaenen, A. (eds), Modern Icelandic Syntax, 71-91. San Diego: Academic Press.

Manzini, R. and Roussou, A. 2000. “A minimalist theory of A-movement and control”. Lingua 110: 409-447.

Marantz, A. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax”. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201-225.

Moro, A. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry: movement as a symmetry-breaking phenomenon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Mossé, F. 1968. Manual of Middle English. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Müller, G. 2004. “Verb-Second as vP-First” Journal of Comparative Germanic

Linguistics 7: 139-274.Pintzuk, S. 1991. Phrase Structures in Competition: variation and change in Old

English word order. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Pennsylvania. Published as

Pintzuk, S. 1999. Phrase Structures in Competition: variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.

Platzack, C. 1988. “The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate clauses”. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, 215-238.

Pollock, J-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP”. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 365-424.

Richards, M. and Biberauer, T. 2004. Optionality, loss of inflection and the rise of expletives: why Faroese is a VO Afrikaans. Paper presented at the Workshop on Faroese (Reykjavik).

We would like to thank Ans van Kemenade for the stimulating discussion that initially led us to consider more closely the nature of the empirical evidence that would support the Middle English-related proposals in Biberauer & Roberts (2005); and also the audiences at DIGS VIII and CGSW 20, as well as the participants in the Diachronic Dialogue group who attended the seminar held at Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen in December 2004 and, in particular, two extremely thorough CGSW reviewers, whose comments forced us to consider some of our claims more carefully; and, finally, our thanks also go to Jutta and Laszlo for their forbearance. We acknowledge the financial support of the Arts and Humanities Research Council of Great Britain (AR14458). 1 The examples in (6a, b) are more complex than (6c) in that they involve “verb-raising” in the sense of Evers (1975), as seen from the order finite verb – non-finite verb in clause-final position. For a detailed analysis of this order in terms of the general assumptions made here, see B&R, pp. 11ff; see also § 3.2. What we would like to highlight here, however, is that the specific analysis that we propose for modals – namely that they are verbs which select a very specific type of complement, a restructuring TP – allows us to account for the fact that vP-raising will not, as one might initially expect in cases like (6a, b), result in the non-finite verb undergoing movement into Spec-TP along with any non-verbal element undergoing Styl-F. As discussed in more detail in § 3.2, the infinitive in modal complements raises to embedded T and is consequently unavailable for fronting into the matrix clause, with the consequence that it is not present in the vP that raises to SpecTP in Styl-F structures. 2 Note that nothing here hinges on the assumption of a null-operator rather than a raising analysis of relatives. We have placed the rightmost occurrence of tOp in the “leaked” part of the VP, along with the PP biforenn Cristess come – see the discussion of the surface position of this PP in the text to follow.3 Note that the assumption we make here regarding v’s defectiveness should not be interpreted as indicative of our commitment to the idea that passive v is universally non-defective. See Biberauer & D’Alessandro (2006) for consideration of data that may signal the existence of parametric variation in respect of this point.4 An anonymous reviewer raises the question whether our analysis would not lead us to expect vP-adjuncts to surface in pre-subject position, contra the most common pattern in earlier English and Germanic more generally (cf. Haeberli 1999b, 2000 for discussion of the exceptions). We assume that Cinque (1999)’s “lower” adverbs are merged below the subject (or, more accurately, the external argument; cf. the fact that non-external argument subjects frequently surfaced in “low” positions until late ME) and that they therefore do not constitute a problem for our approach. As regards higher adverbs of the subject- and discourse-oriented type, we are happy to allow for the possibility that these are indeed merged higher than the external argument, but that the external argument generally (but not always; see below) surfaces higher than adverbs of this kind owing to the presence of an optional EPP-feature which drives subject-movement to the highest specifier of vP. Since this is an optional EPP-feature, we would, in accordance with Chomsky’s (2001: 34) constraint on optional features and operations, expect it to trigger an “extra” interpretive effect (cf. the detailed discussion in Biberauer & Richards 2006). This would indeed seem to be the case if one considers “Diesing effects” of the kind that have been said to arise in languages like German, which we would assume to employ vP-fronting: in these languages, subjects are differently interpreted depending on their location relative to higher adverbs such as ja doch (“after all”) and wahrscheinlich (“probably”). For us, this would follow straightforwardly if a post-adverbial subject is simply in its First Merge position, whereas a pre-adverbial subject has undergone optional EPP-driven movement to the edge of vP, which thereby brings with it a specific interpretive effect (we leave aside here the vexed issue of precisely what kind of interpretive effect results). The fact that our approach requires us to assume that discourse-related adverbs are merged inside vP would not seem to us to be particularly problematic since (a) this assumption has also been made by other linguists working on what we would view as vP-raising

Richards, M. and Biberauer, T. 2005. “Explaining Expl”. In den Dikken, M. and Tortora, C. (eds), The function of function words and functional categories, 115-154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Roberts, I. 1985. “Agreement Parameters and the Development of the English Modal Auxiliaries”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21-58.

Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Roberts, I. 1995. “Object movement and verb movement in Early Modern English”.

In Haider, H., Olsen, S. and Vikner, S. (eds), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, 269-284. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

languages (cf. Müller 2004) and (b) more traditional analyses also have to account for the fact that discourse adverbials standardly surface below the subject in embedded clauses, despite the fact that the subject is usually thought to be located in SpecTP, with the relevant adverbs therefore having to occupy a lower position. See Biberauer (2006) for more detailed discussion of this matter.5 Here we leave aside for future research the question of why the OE premodals appear to exhibit optionality in respect of whether they selected “full” vs restructuring complements (cf. the fact, pointed out to us by an anonymous reviewer, that 3456/8649 [i.e. 39.96%] OE subordinate clauses taken from Haeberli & Pintzuk 2004 featured V-Aux order rather than restructuring Aux-V).6 Here we indicate the subject of the infinitive as PRO. We do this largely for convenience, remaining on the one hand agnostic regarding the correct analysis of control (see Hornstein 1999, Manzini & Roussou 2000), and on other hand not wishing to imply that restructuring predicates are never raising predicates.7 It should, of course, be noted that object-raising (i.e. stranding rather than pied-piping) would also have been available as an alternative to VP-raising at this stage of the OE derivation. We would therefore expect OE also to exhibit structures in which non-object VP-internal material surfaces after the infinitival V, and leaking structures of this kind are in fact attested:

(i) <Me schal> leoue sustren þeose storien tellen eft ouone shall dear sisters these stories tell afterwards to-you“One shall tell these stories to you afterwards, dear sisters”

(Ancrene Riwle II.122.1552; Kroch & Taylor (2000)’s (32), p. 155)

Here both an adverbial (eft) and an indirect object pronoun (ou) surface to the right of the verb (tellen) which we assume to have raised to adjoin to infinitival T (cf. main text); the direct object ( þeose storien) contrasts with the just-mentioned VP-material in surfacing to the left of tellen, indicating that it must have undergone movement. Following the loss of VP-raising (i.e. the pied-piping means of satisfying v’s EPP-requirements), only object raising would have been available, with the result that structures of this type would be expected to have been even more frequent than during the OE period where they still alternated with the VP-raising type illustrated in (17a) in the main text. The consequences of the loss of obligatory object shift (cf. §2) are discussed in more detail in § 4.1 and 4.2.8 It is worth noting that to was not as systematically found in infinitives in ME as it is in present-day English (cf. Los 1999, 2005). In particular, it consistently failed to appear in the complements of modals, a characteristic which the modern-day English modals, with the well-known exception of ought, retain and which has also frequently been said to have played an important role in the reanalysis of the English modals (cf. Lightfoot 1979, Roberts 1985, 1993 and the discussion in §4). It is possible that ought in fact derives from some other source than verb-projection raising, since its cognates in German and Dutch do not trigger verb-projection raising. We leave this matter for further research.9 Biberauer & Roberts (ibid.) identify the paucity in early ME of unambiguous “signposts” for the pied-piping (i.e. rigidly head-final) grammar as the reason for the demise of VP-pied-piping. Thus, for example, the fact that particle verbs, were, as noted by Spasov (1966; cited in Kroch & Taylor 2000: 146), vanishingly rare during the 12th and 13th centuries removed one of the clear indicators that the OE grammar had at least had the option of requiring all VP-internal material to raise into the vP-domain. Similarly, the loss of dative case and the encoding of indirect objects via PPs led to an increase in “leaking”/extraposition structures featuring a post-verbal indirect object, which further weakened the evidence for VP-piedpiping (which would have produced structures featuring the indirect object and other VP-internal material in preverbal position).

Roberts, I. 1997. “Directionality and word order change in the history of English”. In van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 397-426. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roberts, I. 1999. “Verb movement and markedness”. In de Graff, M. (ed.), Language Change and Language Creation: Creolization, Diachrony and Development, 287-327. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rutten, J. 1991. Infinitival Complements and Auxiliaries. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Amsterdam.

Spasov, D. 1966. English phrasal verbs. Sofia: Naouka Izkoustvo.Trips, C. 2002. From OV to VO in Early Middle English. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.Warner, A. 1983. “Review of Lightfoot 1979”. Journal of Linguistics 19: 187-209.Warner, A. 1993. English auxiliaries: structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Warner, A. 1997. “The structure of Parametric Change and V-movement in the

history of English”. In van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 380-393. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, A. 2000. “Null subjects in Middle English existentials”. In Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds), Diachronic Syntax. Models and Mechanisms, 164-187. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

van der Wurff, W. 1997. “Deriving object-verb order in late Middle English”. Journal of Linguistics 33: 485-509

van der Wurff, W. 1999. “Objects and verbs in Modern Icelandic and fifteenth-century English: a word order parallel and its causes”. Lingua 109: 237-265.

Visser, F. 1963-1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill.Wurmbrand, S. 2001. Infinitives. Restructuring and Clause Structure. Amsterdam:

Benjamins.Zwart, J-W. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the

Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Zwart, J-W. 2005. “A comparative approach to syntactic change in the history of

English”. English Language and Linguistics 9: 157-179.

10 Note that the phrase consistent with the trigger experience is crucial here: as argued in detail in Biberauer & Richards (2006), economy considerations do not rule out the co-existence of two means of satisfying a given EPP-feature, i.e. they do not rule out the existence of optionality-permitting pied-piping grammars and there is no sense in which one can speak of an inherent “cost” associated with a grammar that permits options. Economy considerations do, however, come into play in the acquisition context, where a “bigger” grammar qualifies as “less economical” in Subset terms and therefore needs to be robustly triggered (cf. Biberauer & Roberts 2006a, c for more detailed discussion). There is therefore no contradiction involved in maintaining, on the one hand, that a pied-piping grammar is “costless” – this is the case whenever it is sufficiently robustly triggered by the input – while asserting, on the other, that acquirers will not, for reasons of acquisitional economy, postulate a grammar of this kind whenever the input does not clearly support it. In the current context, we can thus say that maintaining the relevant kind of pied-piping grammars was “economical” in OE and earlier ME because it was empirically motivated, but that the same sort of system became “uneconomical” at the relevant points in English’s history, likewise for input-related reasons.11 This reanalysis cannot apply to ought, which has always been able to take a to-infinitive complement, but, as mentioned in Note 8, we consider it likely that this particular modal has a different diachronic source from the others.