The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

220 The syntax of early Englishphrase and the infinitive are not in a fixed adjacent position. Thus in ModernDutch, and also German, the order still varies between main and subordinateclauses due to the rule of Verb-Second:(13) a. Het is slecht voor je om te roken (main clause)‘It is bad for you to smoke’b. (Je weet) dat het slecht voor je is om te roken (subordinate clause)(you know that it bad for you is to smoke‘You know that it is bad for you to smoke’In the subordinate clause in (13b), the infinitive and the benefactive phrase arenot adjacent but are separated by the matrix predicate. Thus, the grammars ofDutch and German, with overt checking of object cases, produce surface wordorders that preclude a reanalysis as in (10), simply because the word ordersrequired for the reanalysis do not arise.The reanalysis first affected the ‘bare’ dative NP, but the later structure –with the dative replaced by the for-phrase – appears to have followed the sameroute, albeit quite a bit later, and also acquired the double interpretation of(10). 3 Indeed, in more recent times, the development has progressed further inthat now we can even have a dummy NP following for:(14) It is essential for it to rain soon.Examples like these show clearly that the idea of a benefactive role has disappearedaltogether.7.2.2 Accusative and infinitive constructions (AcI)The development which took place within the group of AcI constructions((3i b) above) is different from that which affected the (for) NP to V groupin that there is no reanalysis in a construction like I expect you to be bright andcheerful; instead the whole construction is new. At the same time, there aresome clear similarities in that both types are infinitives with lexical subjects. Itis perhaps not surprising, therefore, to see in Lightfoot (1981a) the suggestionthat the appearance of the new AcI was, among other things, furthered by theoccurrence of reanalysed (for) NP to V constructions. We do not believe,however, that there was a kind of chain reaction here; rather, it appears thatboth changes are ultimately related to one and the same factor, i.e. the fixationof VO word order (see Fischer 1988 and also Lightfoot 1991: 84). We put thiscarefully, because again, as in the (for) NP to V change, there are a number of3Most of the examples in Visser (1963–73) where for functions unambiguously as acomplementizer do not pre-date the sixteenth century; cf. §§ 914, 937, 961, 972, 975,986.