The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

120 The syntax of early Englishnegative), whereas this is not the case in topic-initial contexts (topic sentencesare, after all, declarative sentences). The presence of such an operatorblocks cliticization on the left of the finite verb: nothing may intervenebetween the operator and C. Cliticization is then on the right of the finiteverb. From a theoretical point of view, this analysis is not satisfactory; in particular,it is hard to see a principled rationale for the different directionsfor cliticization. 3 It should be observed, however, that the account doesallow us to do justice to the root character of Old English Verb-Second andtopicalization.Susan Pintzuk (1991, 1993) presents an alternative to the analysis by vanKemenade that is inspired by the idea of phrase structure variation. Like vanKemenade, she takes Old English basic word order in the VP to be OV, but herstarting point is the similarity between the position of the finite verb betweenroot and non-root clauses. She proposes that IP comes in two variations: thereare I-medial IPs and also I-final IPs. Based on the structure (28), this yields thefollowing variation:(58)a. C"b.C"specC'C'specC'C'C I"C I"specI'I'specI'I'I V"V"specV'V'specV'V'… V… VIn both configurations, V moves to I, resulting in the following surface wordorders:(59) æt hi mihton swa bealdlice Godes geleafan bodianthat they could so boldly God’s faith preach‘that they could preach God’s faith so boldly’ (ÆCHom I, 16.232.23)(60) æt hie gemong him mid sibbe sittan mostenthat they among themselves in peace settle must‘that they must settle in peace among themselves’ (Or 2.8.52.31)3Tomaselli (1995) recasts this account in a way compatible with recent theoreticaldevelopments.