The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

The loss of object–verb word order 145We can summarize this section as follows: the negative adverb ne always precedesthe finite verb immediately, since it is proclitic on it but we have seen thatthere is an asymmetry between the positions certain other clause elements canhave in relation to the non-finite verb. Some are virtually restricted to preverbalposition; they include verb particles, stranded prepositions, pronominalobjects and (probably) adverbs. There are very few cases indeedwhere these are in postverbal position. When they are, the finite verb almostalways precedes the non-finite verb; examples occur primarily in late texts. Thepositioning of nominal objects, complements and PPs with respect to a nonfrontedverb is rather free: they are found in both preverbal and postverbalpositions. Preverbal objects are not very frequent in the pattern [O v finV nonfin],and postverbal objects in the pattern [V nonfinv finO], but examples do occur, asshown by (26), (28) and (50).During the transition from Old English to Middle English, there is a clearincrease in the frequency of postverbal orders, as we shall see in 5.4. However,first we shall turn to the question of how the Old English patterns describedin this section can be analysed. In this, we should bear in mind that any analysisof Old English word order should allow a plausible perspective on thechanges that take place in Middle English.5.3 Old English word order: OV or VO?In this section, we will discuss arguments for the analysis of OldEnglish word order. This will lead us to look more selectively at some wordorder patterns that speak in favour of or against particular analyses. We willfocus on the structural treatment of word order. For a survey of the descriptiveliterature, the reader is referred to Denison (1993: 27–58). Traugott (1992)presents an approach to Old English word order in terms of typologies ofsurface word order.In a variety of theoretical approaches to word order and word order change,scholars consider that there is something like a basic word order on whichother word orders are variations. Some take the most frequent word order tobe the basic one, while others consider that there is something like anunmarked word order and take discourse factors to be the prime motivatingforce behind word order variation. In this book, we adopt the position that thegrammar of the speaker defines the word order options; within the bounds ofthese options, variations may be motivated by considerations that lie outsidethe domain of grammar in a strict sense (markedness, social factors, pragmatics,discourse, etc.). In the generative approach to grammar, it is customary to