Revisiting extraposition from a diachronic perspective

In this paper we will, on diachronic grounds, propose a new delineation of extraposition constructions. Rather than restricting them to instances with matrix it is (e.g. Huddleston & Pullum 2002:1403), we argue that the schematic extraposition template also subsumes matrix there is. In support of this, we will reconstruct the diachronic development of extraposition constructions with doubt and wonder, accounting for their grammaticalization as well. This reconstruction involves qualitative and quantitative analysis of data extracted from the York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE), the Penn corpora of Historical English for Middle (PPCME) and Early Modern English (PPCEME), the Corpus of Late Modern English texts (CLMETEV), and the Present-day British English written subcorpora of WordBanksOnline. Assuming a cognitive-functional approach (e.g. Langacker 1987, 1991, McGregor 1997, Croft 2001), we posit the following diachronic variants for the matrices of extraposition constructions: (i) be + NP, which is either subject (a) or complement to the subject implied in the finite VP (b); (1a) nan twio næs þæt (CP:8.53.19.330, OE2) vs. (1b) hwilc wundor is þeah (ÆHom 6.116, OE2) (ii) salient cataphoric demonstrative, either Þæs ‘of that’ (a) or þæt ‘that’ (b), + be + NP; (2a) Nis þæs nan tweo, gif ( CP 6.47.10.263, OE2) vs. (2b) þæt is wundor, þæt (Bede 5 13.436.12, OE4) (iii) non-salient subject pronoun, i.e. existential it/there (a) or it (b), + be + NP. (3a) næs þær nænig tweo, þæt (GD_1_[C]:8.52.30.600, OE4) vs. (3b) Full mycel wundor hit wæs þæt (WHom 6 143, OE4). We argue that the (a) forms are variants of existential matrices (EX), which are diachronically the default choice with tweo/doubt, while the (b) forms are variants of predicative matrices (PRED), which are the default with wonder. We will show that the existential and predicative matrices syntactically follow the historical trends of their clause types. The ‘subjectless’ variant (1b) of the PRED matrix disappeared in Late Middle English, when an overt subject became an obligatory element of clause structure (Traugott 1992; Van linden 2012). Existential it as alternative of there in the EX matrix was most common in Middle and Early Modern English (Breivik 1983:257), but virtually disappeared after 1570. We also argue that the default correlations of EX with no doubt and PRED with wonder are semantically motivated. In the lexical uses, EX there’s no doubt describes the absence of doubt (or fear) with regard to the proposition, while PRED it’s a/great/no wonder that p ascribes (degrees of) wonderfulness to the proposition. This entails that, like Bolinger (1973, 1977), we view neither it nor there as meaningless expletives. Rather, with Halliday & Hasan (1976:101), we view them as inherently non-salient, typically cataphoric, pronominal heads. Importantly, examples with both doubt and wonder develop parenthetical uses with some frequency from 1350-1420 onwards. By contrast, ‘non-extraposed’ variants appear only in Late Modern English, remain very rare and can arguably be interpreted as a kind of syntactic ‘backformation’ vis-à-vis the extraposed original. We conclude that McGregor’s (1997: 241-2) binary structural analysis, according to which the proposition is in the scope of the whole matrix, offers the most natural explanation of why the unit whose meaning applies to the following proposition can be realized by either various (historical) forms of PRED or EX, why the matrix can become parenthetical, and why the lexical meaning of the matrix can shift to a grammatical value. References Bolinger, D. 1973. Ambient it is meaningful too! Journal of Linguistics 9, 261-270. Bolinger, D. 1977. Meaning and form. London & New York: Longman. Breivik, L. 1983. Existential there. A synchronic and diachronic study. Bergen: University of Bergen. Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. Davidse, K., De Wolf, S., Van linden, A. 2015. The development of the modal and discourse marker uses of (there/it is / I have) no doubt. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16 (1): 25-58. Gentens, C., Kimps, D., Davidse, K., Jacobs, G., Van linden, A., Brems, L. Forthc. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: The development of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials no wonder. In Kaltenböck, G., Lohmann, A., Keizer, E. (eds) Outside the clause. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Halliday, M. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Huddleston, R. & G. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: SUP. Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: SUP. McGregor, W. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Traugott, E. 1992. Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg, ed. The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. I: The beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: CUP, 168–229 Van linden, A. 2012. Modal adjectives: English deontic and evaluative constructions in diachrony and synchrony. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Van linden, A., Davidse, K., Matthijs, L. 2016. Miracles and mirativity: from lexical it’s a wonder to grammaticalised it’s no wonder in Old English. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Germaanse Filologie, 99-100: 385-409.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.