<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	>

<channel>
	<title>V2 Archives - The Historical Linguist Channel</title>
	<atom:link href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/tags/v2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/tags/v2/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2020 05:37:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.0.9</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">135321646</site>	<item>
		<title>The history of the English language &#8211; Old English syntax</title>
		<link>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/the-history-of-the-english-language-old-english-syntax/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-history-of-the-english-language-old-english-syntax</link>
					<comments>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/the-history-of-the-english-language-old-english-syntax/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sabina Nedelius]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2020 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[English]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Old English]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[syntax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[word order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[V2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VF]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/?p=1084</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Okay! We&#8217;ve done Old English morphology. We&#8217;ve done a bit of a syntactic primer. Let&#8217;s get down to business and discuss Old English syntax! Now, a word of warning: Old English syntax is rather complex. I won&#8217;t go into too much detail in my post, because this is not what this blog aims to do. &#8230; </p>
<p class="link-more"><a href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/the-history-of-the-english-language-old-english-syntax/" class="more-link">Continue reading<span class="screen-reader-text"> "The history of the English language &#8211; Old English syntax"</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/the-history-of-the-english-language-old-english-syntax/">The history of the English language &#8211; Old English syntax</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com">The Historical Linguist Channel</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Okay! We&#8217;ve done <a href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/the-history-of-the-english-language-old-english-morphology/">Old English morphology</a>. We&#8217;ve done a bit of a <a href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/the-history-of-the-english-language-a-syntactic-primer/">syntactic primer</a>. </p>



<p>Let&#8217;s get down to business and discuss <strong>Old English syntax! </strong></p>



<p><strong>Now, a word of warning</strong>: Old English syntax is rather complex. I won&#8217;t go into too much detail in my post, because this is not what this blog aims to do. However, I will, as always, provide you with my references and some further reading for those who are interested at the end of this post. I am also always open to questions, comments, queries and anything of the like &#8211; just give me a shout, either here on the blog, on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel/">Facebook</a>, on Twitter @<a href="https://twitter.com/histlingchannel">histlingchannel,</a> or why not send me an <a href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/contact/">email</a>?</p>



<p>Right, that&#8217;s all I have to say on that topic, except&#8230; <strong>Enjoy!</strong></p>



<p>Old English differs from the English that we are nowadays using in <strong>many</strong> ways. One of these things is in its syntax. </p>



<p>Being a significantly more morphologically inflected language than modern English, Old English syntax was more flexible than what we find today. </p>



<p>If we were to simplify matters, we could say that the <strong>general</strong> tendency in Old English main clauses is to show V2 order. As you might remember from last week, this means that the verb follows one constituent, regardless of what that constituent is. However, Old English word order appears<em> </em>quite free even from that restraint, which led some scholars to think that it was a <em>free word order language</em><span id='easy-footnote-1-1084' class='easy-footnote-margin-adjust'></span><span class='easy-footnote'><a href='https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/the-history-of-the-english-language-old-english-syntax/#easy-footnote-bottom-1-1084' title='According to Davis (2006), this thought (named &amp;#8220;myth&amp;#8221; by Davis) persists.'><sup>1</sup></a></span>. </p>



<h6 class="has-text-align-center">This may or may not be true &#8211; I won&#8217;t get into that debate here.  </h6>



<p>What I can say is that Old English often tended towards a V2 order in main clauses. </p>



<p>When I was reading up on things for this post, a lot of sources (usually in the framing of a class) from various universities ended up discussing Old English as an SVO-language. However, according to Kroch, while the subject-tensed.verb-object order <strong>was </strong>the most common word order in Old English, they were <strong>not</strong> SVO-sentences. They were merely V2-sentences, where the first element happened to be the subject. </p>



<p>At the same time, although this might have been a general tendency and the most common word order, it is not always consistent<span id='easy-footnote-2-1084' class='easy-footnote-margin-adjust'></span><span class='easy-footnote'><a href='https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/the-history-of-the-english-language-old-english-syntax/#easy-footnote-bottom-2-1084' title='As pointed out by Bech (2012).'><sup>2</sup></a></span>, which of course leads to more discussion on the word order of main clauses in Old English. </p>



<h6>Clearly, there are some things still to be worked out&#8230; </h6>



<h6 class="has-text-align-center">But, hey, what about subordinate clauses?</h6>



<p>Well, here, the VF (Verb-Final) word order is the norm. This means that the finite verb comes at the very end of the sentence &#8211; like what you see in Dutch and German today.</p>



<h6 class="has-text-align-center">Okay, great! We know something about Old English word order! Yay!</h6>



<p style="color:#ffffff" class="has-text-color">.</p>



<h6 class="has-text-align-center">Yeah&#8230; except&#8230;.</h6>



<p>Old English consistently breaks these conventions. It allows, unlike modern German and Dutch, for V2 order in embedded clauses starting with a complementiser and, in the epic poem <em>Beowulf</em>, for example, subordinate clauses employing a V2 order can be found, as can main clauses with VF order.  And, for that matter, V3 and V4 order! </p>



<h6 class="has-text-align-center">So, what am I saying here? That we really know nothing about Old English word order? </h6>



<h6 class="has-text-align-center"><strong><em>Not quite.</em></strong></h6>



<p>We know that SVO is the most <strong>common</strong> order in Old English main clauses. We also know that subordinate clauses in Old English <strong>tend</strong> to be VF. </p>



<p>We <strong>also know</strong> that this topic requires more study before we can say anything &#8220;for sure&#8221; (or, at least, as sure as one ever is in studying historical linguistics). </p>



<p>But, for you, I hope that this little brief glance into Old English syntax was enlightening! I know I enjoyed reading through the accounts that I used for this post and I hope that you will too! </p>



<p>Join me again next week as we take a look at the continued development of English syntax in <strong>Middle English</strong>!</p>



<p style="color:#ffffff" class="has-text-color">.</p>



<h4 class="has-text-align-center">References</h4>



<p>Anthony Kroch &amp; Ann Taylor. 1996. <em>Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact.</em> Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Check it out <a href="https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/omev2-html/omev2-html.html">here</a>! (I&#8217;ve looked primarily at <a href="https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/omev2-html/node4.html">Chapter 3</a>)</p>



<p>Benjamin Bruening. 2016.  Old English Verb-Second-ish in a Typology of Verb-Second. <em>Draft</em>, <em>Nov. 9.</em> Check it out <a href="https://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/OldEnglishV31.pdf">here</a>. </p>



<p>Bettelou Los. 2015. <em>A historical syntax of English</em>. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.</p>



<p>Graeme Davis. 2006. <em>Comparative syntax of Old English and Old Icelandic</em>. Bern: Peter Lang.</p>



<p>Kristin Bech. 2012. Word Order, Information Structure, and Discourse Relations. In Anneli Meurman-Solin, Maria Jose Lopez-Couso, and Bettelou Los (eds.). <em> Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English</em>. Oxford Scholarship Online. DOI:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0004, or check it out <a href="https://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0004">here</a>.</p>



<p>Linda van Bergen. 2015. <em>Pronouns and word order in Old English</em>. 2nd ed. New York &amp; London: Routledge. </p>



<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_grammar#Word_order">Old English grammar</a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/the-history-of-the-english-language-old-english-syntax/">The history of the English language &#8211; Old English syntax</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com">The Historical Linguist Channel</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/the-history-of-the-english-language-old-english-syntax/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">1084</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
