대한언어학회 전자저널

Kim, Daeik. (2017). Toward a unified explanation of word order differences in Old English and Present-Day English in recent Minimalism. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 25(3), 113-132. The aim of this paper is to give an explanatory account of the differences in word order between Old English (OE) and Present-Day English (PE) in terms of the labeling algorithm advocated in Chomsky (2013, 2014). It has been argued in recent proposals that, with VO order in the main clause, OE exhibits OV or VO order in similar proportion in subordinate clauses where previous accounts considered only OV order to be a basic order. Given this revision, I propose that the differences in word order between OE and PE be attributed to the merge type in VP (VP-NP merge in OE vs. V-NP merge in PE), the difference in the number of the phases (monophase CP in OE vs. CP and vP phases in PE), and the status of feature inheritance (no feature inheritance in OE vs. feature inheritance in PE) when the label of the merge {X,Y} is determined in the labeling algorithm where sub-algorithms, such as minimal search and feature sharing, are activated.

# 어순(word order) # 최소주의(minimalism) # 명찰알고리듬(labeling algorithm) # 전승(feature inheritance) # 최소수색(minimal search) # 자질공유(feature sharing) # 국면(phase)

• 김대익. (2015). 최소주의 관점의 고대영어어순고찰. 새한영어영문학, 57(3), 169-188.
• 김대익. (2016). 명찰이론에서의 동사이동과 국면. 새한영어영문학, 58(2), 153-171.
• 김대익. (2017). 고대영어 매입절 동사구 어순과 명찰알고리듬. 언어과학, 24(1), 1-20.
• Borer, H. (2014). The Category of roots. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp. 112-148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bean, M. C. (1983). The development of word order patterns in Old English. Croom Helm, London/Barnes.
• Canale, M. (1978). Word order changer in Old English: Base reanalysis in generative grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec.
• Chomsky, N. (1993). A Minimalist program for linguistic theory, In K. Hale & J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from building 20. Essay in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework, In R. Martin et al (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-157). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phrase, In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2005). On phase. Unpublished manuscript. MIT.
• Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49.
• Chomsky, N. (2014). Problems of projection: extensions. Unpublished manuscript. MIT.
• Epstein, S. D., H. Kitahara, & T. D. Seely. (2016). Phase cancellation by external pair-merge of heads. The Linguistic Review, 33(1), 87-102.
• Fisher, O., van Kemenade, & van der Wurff, W. (2000). The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Haeberli, E., & Pintzuk, S. (2011). Revisiting verb (projection) raising in Old English. In D. Jonas, J. Whitman, & A. Garrett (Eds.), Grammatical change: origins, nature, outcomes (pp. 219-238). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Heggelund, Ø. (2014). On the use of data in historical linguistics: Word order in early English subordinate clauses. Unpublished manuscript. Telemark University.
• Hulk, A., & van Kemenade. (1995). Verb second, pro-drop, functional projections and language change. In B. Adrian & I. Roberts (Ed.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lee, J.-S. (2015). The SVO hypothesis in Korean: word order variation, head movement and linearization. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 23(4), 63-90.
• Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Kemenade, A. van. (1987). Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.
• Kroch, A., & Taylor, A. (2000). Verb-object order in early Middle English. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pennsylvania.
• Lasnik, H. (1994). Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the minimalist program. Unpublished manuscript. University of Connecticut.
• Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principle of diachronic syntax. Cambridge University Press.
• Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameter: arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Pintzuk, S. (1993). Verb seconding in Old English: verb movement to INFL. The Linguistic Review, 10, 5-35
• Pintzuk, S. (1999). Phrase structures in competition: variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.
• Pintzuk, S. (2002). Verb-object order in Old English: variation as grammatical competition. In D. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change (pp. 276-299). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pintzuk, S., & Taylor, A. (2002). Verb order, object position and information status in Old English. Unpublished manuscript. University of York.
• Roberts, I. (1997). Directionality and word order in the history of English. In Kemenade & Vincent (Eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change (pp. 397-426). Cambridge University Press.
• Traugott, E. (1972). A history of English syntax, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York.
• Trips, C. (2002). From OV to VO in early Middle English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.