Being
on the edge: the Force of at and till
Elly
van Gelderen
Arizona
State University
ellyvangelderen@asu.edu
DGfS,
2 March 2000, Marburg
In this paper, I have two goals, a descriptive and a
theoretical one. First, I describe the extent to which at and till
are used in northern texts and what their categorial status is. Second, I
examine these changes from the point of view of a split CP, as in Rizzi (1997)
and Cinque (1999). I argue that even though Modern English does not provide
evidence for a split non-finite CP, there is some evidence in Middle English (perhaps
related to the C-orientation). Finite CPs show a split in all stages. I also
claim that there is a reorganization of e.g. finite that/for from Fin to
Force. This is probably related to features such as future/purpose, but this
remains for further research.
1 Rizzi
and Cinque
Rizzi (1997: 283) argues that "the complementizer
system [is] the interface between a propositional content (expressed by the IP)
and the superordinate structure (a higher clause or, possibly, the articulation
of discourse, if we consider a root clause)". Therefore, the CP contains
elements that look outside which he calls Force, and those that look inside,
which he refers to as Finite. In addition, the CP (optionally) accomodates
Topic and Focus. The structure of such an articulated CP is given in (1):
1. ... Force ... (Topic) ... (Focus) ...
Fin IP
Rizzi's
(8), p. 288
In Italian, the finite complementizer che is in
Force but the infinitival di occupies Fin. The evidence for this comes
from topicalization and left dislocation. The finite complementizer precedes
the Topic, as in (2), whereas the infinitival one follows, as in (3), both from
Rizzi (1997: 288). In (3), di could be in I, but Rizzi does not discuss
that possibility:
2. Credo
che il tuo libro, loro lo apprezzerebbero molto
believe
that the your book they it appreciate much
`I
believe that they would appreciate your book a lot'.
3. Credo,
il tuo libro, di apprezzarlo molto
believe
the your book for appreciate-it much
`I
believe to appreciate your book a lot'.
The
English finite complementizers that and for behave like che,
as (4) (sentence is taken from McCloskey 1991) and (5) show:
4. She
maintains that Irish stew she sort of likes t.
5. ... for
Irish stew I sort of like.
This means that and finite for are in
Force not in Fin[1].
Historically, this was probably always the case for for, which is first
attested as a finite complementizer around 1200, according to the OED, as in
(6) and (7), but not for that, which was Fin probably till about 1500,
as we'll see:
6. York,
11, 286
For
hardely I hym heete
for
indeed I threaten him
7. 10,12
For
frenshippe we haue foune.
The
infinitival complementizer for in (8) is similar to Italian di in
(3) in that a topic cannot follow it. The reason is that for needs to be
adjacent to the subject for Case reasons. However, it is unlike di in
that a topic cannot precede it either, as the ungrammaticality of (9) shows.
This is unexpected if for is in Fin. Rizzi does not discuss for:
8. *I
expect for her homework her to do.
9. *I
expected her homework for her to do
If we test the position with other non-finite
complementizers, the result is the same, i.e. topics cannot precede them:
10. *He swam
the chanel i[to England] in order to get ti.
11. *I wonder
i[to Alaska] whether to go ti
Thus, non-finite complementizers in English do not fit
readily in the expanded CP.
Cinque
(1999) argues that CP and IP do not suffice because adverbs need to be accomodated.
The CP needs to accomodate speech act, evaluative, and evidential adverbials (honestly,
unfortunately, evidently respectively), and modal affixes in certain
languages. Cinque does not use Rizzi's categories, unfortunately, and does not
test the compatibility of these adverbs with topics and focus. Even though (12)
seems slightly odd, it is acceptable to native speakers with honestly in
ForceP and those books in the topic. However, (13) is a problem since,
in Cinque's approach, frankly is higher in the tree than surprisingly,
but the two cannot occur together as in (13) (Cinque's examples have the second
adverb inside the IP):
12. ?Honestly,
those books, he should have read before class.
13. *Frankly,
surprisingly, he read those books.
This suggests that the English CP may be restricted.
Checking some literary works, no combinations such as (13) are found. Thus,
matrix CPs such as (12) and (13) show that the CP contains a ForceP with the
sentence adverb and a TopicP with a topic.
Cinque
says very little about subordinating conjunctions, which is surprising since
these originally motivated the use of C and CP (Chomsky 1986). However, testing
what can come after (or before) a subordinating conjunction provides the
following surprising results:
14. a. *I know that frankly she left
b. *I know frankly that she left.
15. *I know
that surprisingly he left.
16. ?I know
that allegedly he left.
It seems that that is in complementary
distribution with the adverb. If that is in the Head of ForceP in (14b),
the adverb cannot be in the Specifier (perhaps in keeping with Koopman's 1996
generalized doubly filled COMP constraint). The data are confirmed by using
electronic corpora, e.g. in Jane Austen's Emma, happily can only
occur in the CP domain, as in (17), if that is not present. In cases
when other CP material is present, as in (18) and (19), it does not occur at
the beginning but after the subject in the IP:
17. Emma,
ch 5
Happily
he was not farther from approving matrimony than ...
18. Emma,
ch 24
It is
what we happily have never known any thing of.
19. Emma,
ch 4
As I am
happily quite an altered creature
Epistemic
adverbs (e.g. probably) are in the IP domain, as (20) and (21) show:
20. *I know
that probably IP[he left].
21. I know
that IP[he probably left].
The IP also needs to include three tenses, an irrealis
mood, and countless aspects (see e.g. Cinque 1999: 77), but these are left out
of this discussion.
Accordingly,
the complementizer that is in complementary distribution with speech act
adverbs (frankly in (14)) and evaluative adverbs (surprisingly in
(15)), expected if both are in ForceP. It is marginally in complementary
distribution with the evidential ones (allegedly in (16)). That
expresses Force but, against Cinque, a lower CP category as in (14a) cannot be
filled by an adverb, or the specifier of Force as in (14b). Sentence (21) shows
that the complementizer is not in complementary distribution with the epistemic
adverb, expected if the latter is part of the IP domain. Putting these facts
together with those in (4), the English finite CP complex includes a ForceP and
a TopP.
The
same complementarity between sentence adverbs and the complementizer can be
seen with non-finite complementizers, as shown in (22) and (23). These
sentences are only comprehensible if the adverbs are seen as manner adverbs
modifying the subordinate VP, not as speech act or evaluative ones:
22. *He made
preparations in order frankly to invade the country.
23. *He made
preparations in order surprisingly to invade the country.
Because
of the existence of this complementarity and the incompatibility of topics with
for, as in (8) and (9) above, I assume Modern English non-finite CPs
have only one CP. For older varieties, I will argue that Rizzi's structure
provides some insight. English finite CPs are split into a ForceP and TopicP.
2 At
and til: general background
Throughout the history of English, the meaning of
prepositions changes from concrete to abstract, e.g. from spatial to temporal
to future tense. As a result, they are reanalysed as complementizers and
infinitive markers. This happens with at as well, as I describe below.
The situation with till is more complex. The use of at and till
as I and C has not been discussed much; their categories not either. Strang
(1970) just cites Mustanoja; Mustanoja (1960: 348-9; 362-427) mainly gives
prepositional uses and refers to the MED for more. Mitchell (1985, I: 497ff)
provides lists of prepositions and the cases. Bosworth & Toller (1898), and
Baugh & Cable (1993: $77 and Appendix A) indicate northern influence.
Cognates
of at can be found, for instance, in Latin ad, Sanskrit adhi,
and Scandinavian att. In the Scandinavian languages, att/å is
both an infinitive marker and complementizer (e.g. Platzack 1986); and cognates
of to are no longer found (see Norde 2000 for the grammaticalization of at
in Scandinavian). In Modern Dutch and German, the situation is the reverse:
cognates of to occur (te and zu) but cognates of at
do not. In Modern (standard) English, to and at occur both but in
differing functions: to is used as a directional preposition, as well as
a Case marker, and a functional category; the use of at is much more
limited and very complex: "a classification of its uses is very
difficult" (OED entry for at), and "[o]wing to the subtlety of
its meaning, at is perhaps the most troublesome preposition for foreign
learners" (Lindstromberg 1997: 165). The typical Old English usage of at
is as a preposition expressing a spatial relation.
Regarding
till, the OED mentions that the origin is probably a noun, with the
meaning of `fixed point', cognate with German Ziel. The use of till
as preposition is rare in Old English, e.g. Beowulf has none, and in the
OE part of the Helsinki corpus there may be 4 instances whereas there are over
6000 instances of to. Where we now use (un)til, OE uses oş şæt
(see Mitchell 1985, II: 388ff). Most of the examples in the OED are from Cursor
Mundi, Ormulum, Rolle, and Hampole, i.e. from Northern texts. Bosworth &
Toller (1898) mention explicitly that it occurs only in northern texts.
Mustanoja (1960: 408-9) says that it is "typically northern", but has
been in general use since c1300. A famous instance is from the Northumbrian
version of Caedmon's Hymn, listed as (24) below:
24. heben til
hrofe
`heaven
for a roof'
Of the
use of till as an infinitive marker, the OED says that this use was not
present in Old Norse. This is surprising if it occurs in Northern texts, i.e.
where Norse influence was most pronounced. The use could have been extended
during Old English. The examples given in the OED start with a version of CM,
namely (25), which is curiously one of the Midlands` versions, not a northern
one:
25. CM
Fairfax Ms 12988-9 (other 3 have for to)
me şink
şe ne ha3t haue na doute
for
tille be myne vnderloute
`I
think you ought to have no doubt to be my subject'.
3 Northern:
Lindisfarne, Cursor Mundi, St Benet, and the York Plays
In the oldest OE Northern text, the Lindisfarne version
of Matthew (c950 from Northumbria), there are 4 instances of prepositional for,
1 of til as a preposition indicating direction, and 1 of til as
an infinitive marker. There are no instances of for to/forto and of at/t.
Thus, to is the regular preposition and infinitive marker; the use of for
and til is exceptional, and at does not occur, indicating that at
and till are not characteristic of this stage of northern Old English.
In terms of a structural analysis, some questions arise. There is never an
overt subject to the infinitive or an overt complementizer. One could argue
that C already expresses purpose and that to occupies C. This is
unlikely since to is never split from the verb. Lindisfarne therefore
does not shed much light on a split non-finite CP.
There
are a number of versions of Cursor Mundi. Morris's (1874-1893) edition
has 2 Northern and 2 Midlands versions and hence these can be compared as to
the use of infinitival markers. The Cotton Vespas. A iii is a northern text
from the early 14th century (e.g. retention of -ande and of -a-;
no palatalization; the use of qu- for wh-) from the early part of
the 14th century and is written in 3 different hands.
In the
pages selected, there are 5 instances of til/l as preposition and one,
as in (26), which is a complementizer. It could be that in (26), till is
in Force and all oure bale in Topic:
26. CM, 105-6
Til all
oure bale ai for to bete,
Oure
lauerd has made şat maiden
so all
our sorrow always for to heal our lord has made that maiden
`Our
lord has created that woman in order to heal our sorrow forever'.
I come back to this in connection to forto. In
the rest of the text, till also functions as infinitive marker, as in
(27):
27. CM 5330
Cotton
To lith
a quil his word til her
to
listen a while his word to hear
In the other versions, til is replaced by at
(Fairfax) and by to in the other two.
Forto
functions as an infinitival marker 7 times, as in (26) above. Typical for for
to is that an object precedes it, as in (26) and (28):
28. CM, 1
Man
yhernes rimes for to here
`People
yearn to hear rhymes'.
These constructions perhaps provide evidence for a split
infinitival CP, as in (29) and (30), and they continue to occur well into ME.
(However, (29) and (30) may not be correct since a subject never occupies Spec
IP, if there is a topic):
29. ForP
. For'
For TopP
till . Top'
Top FinP
all oure . Fin'
bale Fin IP
for . I'
I VP
V
to bete[2]
30. TopP
. Top'
rimes Top FinP
. Fin'
Fin IP
for . I'
I VP
to V
here
A similar construction occurs in the two northern
versions, namely (31ac), replaced by (31bd) in the other two:
31. a. CM 18441-4 Cotton
fader
... grantes til his, Sinful men şaim for to ledd In paradise
b. Idem, Fairfax
ffader
... sent to his Synfull men for to thus lede In paradice
c. Idem, Göttingen
Fadir
... sent till hijs, Sinful men şaim forto lede In paradis
d. Idem, Trinity
Fadir
... sent to his Synful men for to şus lede In paradis
For is
either a preposition (8 times), or a complementizer (11 times). There is,
however, an interesting construction where for is a non-finite
complementizer, and at an infinitival marker, as in (32):
32. CM, 232;
236
şis ilk
bok is es translate ...
For the
commun at understand
The structure would be as in (33), very similar to (29)
and (30):
33. FinP
. Fin'
Fin IP
for . I'
the commun I VP
at V
understand
Visser (pp. 1039-40) lists a number of instances,
especially in the Northern Cotton and Midlands Fairfax where to and at
are separated from the infinitive by a pronoun or nominal object, as in (34ab),
(35ab), (36a), and (37ab). The Göttingen and Trinity versions have to
immediately before the infinitive in (34) to (36):
34. a. CM, 7746 Cotton
Yee
send a man at it receiue
b. Idem, Fairfax
3e
sende a mon atte hit resceyue
c. Idem, Göttingen
3e
send a man it to rescayue
d. Idem, Trinity
sendeş
a mon hit to resceyne
35. a. CM, 8318 Cotton Fairfax
To
temple make he sal be best
b. Idem, Fairfax
to
temple make he sal be best
c. Idem, Göttingen
şe
temple sal he make wid ese
d. Idem, Trinity
şe
temple bi him made shal be
36. a. CM, 23784 Cotton
We
fine noght to it al fulfill
`we
end not to fulfill it all'.
b. Idem, Fairfax
we
fine neuer hit to fulfille
c. Fine we neuer to ful-fill
d. Hit to fulfille we fuyne nou3t
37. a. CM, 27363 Cotton
şar
nan has might to oşer boru
`that
noone has a right to rescue the other'.
b. Idem Fairfax
şat
nane has mi3t at oşer borou
c. missing
d. missing
Since most of these occur in Cotton and Fairfax, the use
is not arbitrary, but indicative of a structural difference. In van Gelderen
(1993), I argue that split infinitives are indicative of having to and at
in I. There, I argue that I is only activated later that century. The evidence
in (34) to (37) shows that to is in I at least half a century earlier.
These data fit well with earlier trees, with the addition that the object is in
Spec AGRoP.
In
summary, in CM, there is some evidence for a split infinitival CP. Till
may be in Force and for in Fin, e.g as in (26). At and to
are infinitival markers, most likely in I.
In The
Rule of St Benet, a Northern ME text (e.g. third person s, lack of
palatalization in sal `shall' and mikil `much') from the early
fifteenth century, att is only used as a preposition, as in (38). At
is used as a preposition, as in (39); an infinitival marker, as in (40) to
(44); a finite complementizer, as in (45); and a relative marker, as in (46).
This difference in function between at and att is an indication
that phonological reduction goes hand in hand with grammaticalization, as
mentioned above. As to the kind of infinitive at introduces, it can be
purposive in (40) but is most often used after semi-auxiliaries, as in (42) to
(44):
38. Benet,
145/6
Att şe
bygynnyng of şe mese şe madyn şat salbe mayde nun sal sit in ...
`At the
beginning of the mass the maiden that is to become nun shall sit'
39. Benet,
1/13
it is
to obey hym at al tyme
`It is
to obey him all the time'.
40. 3/17
şus
kennis ure lauerd us his werkis, at folu his cumandementis
`In this way, our lor teaches us his
works, (in order) to follow his commandments'
41. 2/31
şe riht
şidir at cume şai sal haue
42. 5/4
wat man
az at be abot
`what
kind of man ought to be abbott
43. 5/11
He ah
na şing at cumande
44. 11/10
yef I
leuid at se to mekenes
If I
cease to see to mekeness
45. 4/22
şanane
byhouis şam fezte şam ane, at god es tar best help
`for this reason, it is necessary to
fight them alone, that God is their best help'.
46. şe preste
at makis hir sal sai or sing
`the
priest that makes her shall say or sing'.
Till,
tyl, tyll in St Benet are used as prepositions and postpositions.
Til is not only a preposition and postposition but also a
complementizer, as in (47), but this use is rare:
47. 21/12-3
Wylys sho is in sentence, sho ne sal
noht be in cuuent, til it be amended.
Thus, as expected, the phonologically reduced form is
more grammaticalized. This is also true for att and at, shown
above. So, in St Benet, at is in I and til is a finite
complementizer.
The
York Plays are written down in a mid C15 ms, and, as the place
name implies, quite northern (e.g. sal). What is interesting is that at
has `lost the battle' to for to and to as complementizer and
infinitival marker. There are 72 instances of till and 77 of tille,
and one marks an infinitive, others are adverbs, prepositions, and finite
complementizers. The majority of at is preposition or infinitival
marker. In York, the infinitival marker at is (once) separated from the
verb, as in (48), indicating its categorial status is unclear:
48. York 1.20
Baynely
in my blyssing at here be
Willingly
in my invocation to be here
What is
the status of for to? Objects optionally precede it, as in (49) and
(50), indicating that for may be in the expanded CP of Rizzi. Occasionally,
a construction as in (52) to (54) is encountered, but without an object
preceding it:
49. York
5.20-1
Myght Y
hym so betraye
His
likyng for to lette
`Might
I betray him so to put an end to his liking'.
50. York 7.24
That
place of price for to restore.
51. York 7.38
Me for
to were fro warkes were.
52. York, 10.
139
I wolde
be glade for hym to dye
53. York
19.236
I
schall nott lette for nothyng
To saie
as we haue sene
`I
shall no allow for ...
54. York 21,
144
For the
to touche haue I grete drede
Till is used
in a variety of ways. It is most often an adverb, preposition, and finite
complementizer, as in (55); only once an infinitival marker, as in (56):
55. York
16G.267
Go we
nowe till şei come agayne.
56. York
9.132
For
till accounte it cost şe noght.
In
summary to St. Benet, as in CM, there is evidence that non-finite for is
in the head of the FinP. At and to are infinitival markers, and till
is used as finite C and adverb mainly. The latter already shows the modern
situation.
4 Non-Northern
In the early 13th century Caligula version of Layamon's Brut,
i.e. Early Middle English from the Midlands, till does not occur, and
the use of at is restricted to indicating places, as in (57), and
activities, as in (58). There are 106 such instances (in Otho, there are 116):
57. Caligula,
3
He
wonede at Ernle3e
58. 4591
biræiuie
hine at liue
bereaved
him of living
For precedes
the subject in Caligula, as in (59), but there is no topic in the same sentence
to check if it is in Force or Finite:
59. Caligula
1554
for
hire fader heo scunede
`because
her father shunned her'.
That is true with both finite and non-finite clauses. In
Otho, to is sometimes in C together with for, sometimes it
immediately precedes the infinitive. In the earlier Caligula, to is
never separate from the infinitive. Whether with to or without, there is
no evidence in Otho for for being in For or Fin. An interesting
construction in both Caligula and Otho in finite clauses is (60), which occurs
over 20 times, with either ne followed by the finite verb or contracted
with it. This indicates for is perhaps higher than C:
60. Otho
15772
for ne
may ich hit ileue
Infinitives follow for in Otho, as in (61), but
it is not clear if that means the infinitve has moved to C or not:
61. Otho 713
for
hunti deor wilde
Thus,
the position of non-finite complementizers is no different from Modern English.
The finite complementizer for is quite different, i.e. it may be in
ForceP, in (60). At and till are no longer used as
complementizers or infinitive markers, the latter is in fact not used at all.
Looking
at Chaucer, who wrote in the Late Middle English period (lC14), at is
not a complementizer or infinitival marker either. The only remnants of
grammatical use are two instances of what look like an infinitive marker, as in
(62), and a number, as in (63), with at preceding a verbal noun,
expressing action in progress:
62. Troilus
& Cressida 4.1659 (also 3.1003)
I kan
na more; it shal be founde at preve
63. at
reste/at mete
Kenyon (1909), in his study of infinitives in Chaucer,
does not mention this infinitival marker. The total number of instances of at
is 921, as opposed to 9922 instances of prepositional and infinitival to.
Thus, in non-northern texts even as early as 1250, the role of at is
reduced to preposition and possibly aspect marker, not a C or I.
The use
of til/l is different. In Layamon, as mentioned, variants of (un)til/l
do not occur. In Chaucer, even though there are fewer instances of till
than of at (341 til and 16 till), they are often finite
complementizers, as in (64) and (65). It is interesting that many tils
are followed by that, as in (66), indicating till is in Force and
that in Fin. The latter fits with having many wh that
constructions as in (67):
64. til we be
roten l. 3875
65. til she
the cradel fond l. 4221
66. til that
he cam to Thebes l. 983
67. She loved
Arite so
That
when that he was absent any throwe,
Anon
her thoghte her herte brast a-two ll. 93-5
There are also 4 until/ls in Chaucer, both as C
and P:
68. until a
smyth men cleped daun, l. 3761
69. until
to-morwe, l. 1070).
Till has an
initial purpose meaning even though that meaning is lost. This may indicate it
is in the ForceP. Evidence for that is its use with that at least up
until Shakespeare's time, as in (70) and (71):
70. Macbeth
79
Till
that Bellona's husband, lapt in proofe
71. Hamlet
3173-5
Till that her garments, ..., Pul'd
the poor wretch from her melodious buy, To muddy death.
This shows purposive till is in Force and that
in Fin. In (72) and (73), till would also be in ForceP and from my
bones and by some elder masters in Focus positions:
72. Macbeth
Ile
fight Till from my bones my flesh be hackt.
73. Hamlet
3700-2
I stand aloofe ... Till by some
elder Masters of knowne Honor, I haue a voyce
However, there is also evidence from the middle of the
15th century that that (by itself) is already in Force since it precedes
a Topic, as in (74) and (75), but also from Shakespeare, as in (76):
74. PL 4022
And I
told him that, as for such mony that shuld ..., I wold ...
75. PL
7181/11230
76. Hamlet
1009
I am
sorrie that with better speed and iudgement I had not quoted him
The number of wh that constructions is very
limited, one in Hamlet, none in Macbeth.
One
scenario for the loss of the expanded CP with till and non-finite for
is that till is reanalyzed from a purpose marker to a time marker, i.e.
in the head of FinP) and that as a result till that is generally lost by
1500 (occurs in Shakespeare, ME4 in Helsinki but not in EMOD1). New purpose
markers are slow: in order that/to only appear in 1711.
5 Conclusion
Historically, til/l starts out as a preposition
(derived from a noun) and a purposive infinitive marker, but ends up as a
finite temporal complementizer. Structurally, it shifts from Force to Finite,
and its grammaticalization involves a shift of purpose features (in Force) to
tense features (in Fin). That shifts from Fin to Force, which indicates
degrammaticalization, but the motivation is not clear. At starts as
preposition, becomes an infinitive marker and then disappears as such, perhaps
because it is an aspect marker as well. For emerges as both a non-finite
and finite complementizer, i.e. a clear C; and to an I. For some time,
there is evidence that non-finite for is in the head of FinP, but then
the non-finite CP is no longer split. In order to/that appears in 1711,
according to the OED.
As to a
split CP, Modern English provides evidence that a finite CP is split, but not a
non-finite one. In Middle English, the non-finite CP shows evidence of some
split too. This development runs counter to other developments that show an
increase in the number of functional categories in the history of English, see
e.g. van Gelderen (1993; 1997).
In
terms of grammaticalization, the results are somewhat unexpected too: that
switches from Fin in ME to Force in ModE, but finite for was always in
Force. Non-finite for and finite till lose the ability to head a
split CP. The latter may be related to the switch from C-oriented to
I-oriented.
References
Abraham,
Werner 1997. "The base structure of the German Clause", in German:
Syntactic Problems. Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen (eds.): 11-42.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Baugh, A. & Cable, Thomas 1993. A History of the
English Language. ...
Beadle, Richard 1982. The York Plays. London:
Arnold.
Belden, Henry
1897. The Prepositions in, on, to, for, fore, and æt in Anglo-Saxon Prose.
Baltimore.
Bosworth,
Joseph & T. Northcote Toller 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carpenter,
H. 1905. Die Deklination in der Northumbrischen Evangelienübersetzung der
Lindisfarner Handschrift. Bonn.
Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads.
Oxford: OUP.
Demske-Neumann,
Ulrike 1994. Modales Passiv und Tough Movement - Zur strukturellen
Kausalität eines syntaktischen Wandels im Deutschen und Englischen.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Dusenschön,
Friedrich 1907. Die Präposition æfter, æt und be in der altenglischen Poesie.
Kiel.
Gelderen,
Elly van 1993. The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
- 1996.
"The Reanalysis of Grammaticalized Prepositions in Middle English", Studia
Linguistica 50.2: 106-124.
- 1997. Verbal
Agreement and the Grammar of its `Breakdown'. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
- 1998.
"For to in the History of English", in the American Journal
of Germanic Language and Literature 10.1: 45-72.
Gottweiss,
Reinhard 1905. "Die Syntax der Präpositionen æt, be, ymb in den
Aelfric-Homilien und andern Homiliensammlungen". Anglia 28: 305-93.
Haumann, Dagmar 1997. Syntax of Subordination.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Heine,
Berndt, Ulrike Claudi & F. Hunnemeyer 1991. Grammaticalization.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kenyon, John 1909. The Syntax of the Infinitive in
Chaucer. London.
Koopman, Hilda 1996. UCLA ms.
Lindstromberg,
Seth 1997. English Prepositions Explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
McCloskey,
Jim 1991. "Verb Fronting, Verb Second, and the Left Edge of the IP in
Irish", ms.
Mitchell, Bruce 1985. Old English Syntax I and II.
Oxford.
Morris, Richard (ed.) 1874-1893. Cursor Mundi, 7
Parts. Trübner & Co.
Mustanoja, Tauno 1960. A Middle English Syntax.
Helsinki.
Norde,
Muriel 2000. "The Grammaticalization of Adpositions in the Hsitory of
Swedish", UvA ms.
Platzack,
Christer 1986. "COMP, INFL, and Germanic word order". Topics in
Scandinavian Syntax ed. by Hellan, Lars & Kristi Koch Christensen,
185-234. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Rizzi,
Luigi 1997. "The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery", in Elements
of Grammar. Liliane Haegeman (ed): 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Strang, Barbara 1970. A History of English.
Visser,
F. 1963-1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Grammar, Vol I-IIIb.
Leiden: Brill.
Notes