BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:The development of Old English conjunct clauses: How syntactic cha
 nges interact  - Dr Richard Zimmermann (University of Manchester)
DTSTART:20220203T163000Z
DTEND:20220203T180000Z
UID:TALK167032@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Javier Moreno
DESCRIPTION:Registration link: https://cam-ac-uk.zoom.us/meeting/register/
 tJ0pcuuqpj4qEtXgGr0cJenEi-Gz4JmA2BGr\n\nScholars of Old English commonly p
 ostulate two distinct types of root clauses: ordinary main clauses and so-
 called conjunct clauses\, i.e. main clauses that are introduced by a coord
 inating conjunction\, like and ‘and’\, ac ‘but’\, oþþe ‘or’ 
 and ne ‘nor.’ These two clause types are distinct in terms of several 
 word order patterns. The distributional word order differences are\, howev
 er\, merely statistical in nature.  \n\n \n\nFirstly\, main clauses are fa
 r more likely to show the finite verb in medial position similar to Modern
  English\, (1a)\, than conjunct clauses\, which retain a conservative verb
 -final pattern more frequently\, (1b\, note the initial “&”) (e.g. Mit
 chell 1985: §1685\, §1731\, Bech 2001).  \n\n \n\n (1) a.  \n\nSe  engel
       gehyrte    hi    mid his wordum  \n\nthe angel encouraged them with 
 his words  \n\n(cocathom1\,_CHom I\, 13:284.110.2451)[1] \n\n      b.  \n\
 n&     þæt folc     nugyt      þæt tacn    Iosepes gesetnesse æfterfy
 lgeað  \n\nand that people now-yet  that token Joseph’s law           a
 fter-follows  \n\n‘And the people still follow that aspect of Joseph’s
  law’  \n\n(coorosiu\,Or 1:5.24.13.472)  \n\n  \n\nSecondly\, topicaliza
 tion\, constituent fronting to clause-initial position\, occurs frequently
  in main clauses (2)\, whereas such structures are uncommon in conjunct cl
 auses (Kohonen 1978). \n\n \n\n (2)  \n\nþone suðran steorran we ne gese
 oð næfre  \n\nthe   southern  star       we not see       never  \n\n‘
 We don’t ever see the southern star’ (cotempo\,_Temp:9.8.299)  \n\n \n
 \nThese facts can be formalized as follows: A structurally high phrase\, C
 P\, places a complementizer in its head position\, C°\, leading to freque
 nt verb-final subordinate clauses as in (1) (Besten 1983)\, and optionally
  projects a fronted constituent in its specifier\, leading to topicalizati
 on structures as in (2). One can then assume that Old English has a very s
 pecial class of conjunctions\, which can occur under C°. I call those ite
 ms ‘C-head conjunctions’. This captures the higher rates of verb-final
  headedness and the lower rates of topicalization in conjunct clauses at t
 he same time. \n\n \n\nThis theory leads to expected violations of the Con
 stant Rate Effect (Kroch 1989). These violations are among the first theor
 etically predicted interactions between syntactic changes\, and are theref
 ore the focus of this presentation. \n\n \n\nFirst\, verb final orders are
  in the process of disappearing (Pintzuk 1999). The loss of C-head conjunc
 tions should open up the C° position for the finite verb\, thereby speedi
 ng up this change in conjunct clauses. Second\, topicalization becomes les
 s common (Speyer 2010). The loss of C-head conjunctions should compensate 
 for this reduction to some degree\, thus slowing down the change in conjun
 ct clauses. Both of these predictions are born out. 
LOCATION:Faculty of English and Online
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR