SELIM05.pdf Javier Pérez Guerra, Selim 5 (1996): 91—106 SYNTAX AND INFORMATION HAND IN HAND? ON EXTRAPOSITION AND INVERSION FROM LATE MIDDLE ENGLISH TO CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH1 0. INTRODUCTION. SYNTACTIC TOPICS It is generally assumed that the word -order changes which led to the present- day syntactic configuration of English sentences took place and mainly fin - ished during the ME period. In this paper,2 I shall investigate the principles governing two relevant configurational operations common both to contem- porary and to earlier English: subject in version and subject extraposition. To that end, I will use data from the periods following the standardization of the English syntax, namely late Middle English (lME henceforth) and early Modern En glish (abbreviated as eModE or eMod). With the aim of justifying the selection of the research topics just mentio - ned, I will assume the following principles: (a) English declarative speech is, formally speaking, a verb -second lan- guage, irrespectively of the deep pattern one wants to ascribe to it. (b) If, as a consequence of (a), the verb occupies the second position of a sentence, then every element occurring in pre verbal position in declarative utterances will be said to go in first position. I will use the label ‘syntactic topic’ (or simply ‘topic’ henceforth) for that constitu- ent(s) in first position, partially drawing on Halliday’s (1967, 1985: 39) 1 The research which is here reported has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science through its Dirección General de Investigación Científica y Técnica (DGICYT), grant number PB-0619. This grant is hereby gratefuly acknow- ledged. 2 A preliminary version of this paper was delivered at the Glasgow Conference of the European Society for the Study of English (ESSE/3) in September 1995, as “Dummy and Null Topics from Late Middle English to Contemporary English. Some Remarks on Extraposition and Inversion.” Javier Pérez Guerra ____________________________________________________________________ 94 systemic concept of ‘theme, and even more on Downing and Locke’s (1992: 222) proposal. (c) The justification of the syntactic topics of English sentences is ab- solutely relevant as far as the configuration of English (external) word - order and English syntax are concerned. That granted, let us move to a further matter, that is, the splitting of the whole set of syntactic topics in English into five classes: (i) lexical subjects (external arguments on most occasions), which are said to constitute the unmarked option in English declarative sentences; (ii) complements and modifiers (adjuncts); (iii) sentence modifiers (the so-called disjuncts, conjuncts, etc.; (iv) dummy, representative, anticipatory, expletive or pleonas tic subjects, that is, grammatical items such as it or there, whose only goal is to be slot-fillers so as to maintain the non-pro -drop principle postulated by the theory of grammar. as far as contemporary English is concerned.1 Since arguments have been levelled against the characterization of these dummy elements as subjects, I shall prefer the (more neutral) label ‘dummy topic’; (v) absence of subjects, that is, sentences with covert first position, or if one prefers, with verbs located initially. In order to couch this class in the terminology suggested in (iv), I will use the la bel ‘null topic. ‘ In the course of this research, as already pointed out, I will examine two il- lustrations of, respectively, types (iv) and (v) in the near his tory of the En - glish language: subject-extraposition & it-insertion —hence abbreviated as EX/IT— and subject-inversion —INV— reflected in (1) and (2) respectively: 1 In Haegeman’s (1991: 53) words, “[i]t is not a referring expression: it does not refer to an entity in the world, a person or an object; it cannot be questioned (…). On the basis of these observations we formulate the hypothesis that it plays no role in the semantic make-up of the sentence and that its presence is required (…) simply for some structural reason”. See Postal & Pullum (1988) for a detailed account of En- glish dummy items. Syntax and Information hand in hand? ____________________________________________________________________ 95 (1) yt was enacted ordeigned and graunted by auctorite of the same p~liament, that for x. yeres then next folowyng sev~all Comyssions of Sewers shuld be made to dyv~s p~sones, (Q M4 STA LAW STAT2 p. 524)1 (2) And wyll ye se this more manyfestly by . iij. lykenesses. (Q E1 IR SERM FISHER p. 316)2 To round off this introduction, a final note seems in order here. In actual fact, the different ‘folders’ of the classification specified in (i) to (v) above are not exc lusive at all. For instance, most of the examples with dummy and null topics like (3) and (4) comprise preverbal constituents which deserve topical characterization according to my definition of topic: (3) Notwithstanding certaine it is, that if those Schoole men to their great thrist of truth, and vnwearied truaile of wit, had ioyned varietie and vniuersalitie of reading and contempla tion, they had prooued excellent Lights, (Q E2 EX EDUC BACON p. 20V)3 (4) to whom is apropred loue and charite, (Q M3/4 IR SERM ROYAL p. 10)4 Whether we opt for a gradation in terms of central and modifying topics or for a multiple configuration of the syntactic topics in the vein of, for instance, systemic studies, I contend that subjects are core topical elements, and thus both their ‘dumminess’ and their ‘covertness’ must be treated as specific thematic systems on their own. 1. COLLECTING THE DATA. THE CONCEPT OF EX The data have been collected from two popular computerised corpora: the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts for the lME and eModE sections, and the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of Contemporary English for the contempora ry samples (PDE). I explored the first seven one-spaced ASCII 1 The Statutes of the Realm. Printed by Command of His Majesty King George the Third in Pursuance of an Address of the House of Commons of Great Britain, Vol. II, Dawsons of Pall Mall, London, 1963 (1816). 2 Mayor, J. E. B. ed. 1935 (1876): Sermons by John Fisher. The English Works of John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester. Part 1, Early English Text Society, London. 3 Bacon, F. 1970 (1605): The Twoo Bookes of the Proficience and Advancement of Learning (1605), Theatrvm Orbis Terrarvm, Amsterdam. 4 Ross, W. O. ed. 1940: Middle English Sernons, Edited from British Museum Ms. Royal 18 B. XXIII, Early English Text Society, London. Javier Pérez Guerra ____________________________________________________________________ 96 print-out pages of every prose sample, which amount to the totals pictured in Table 1. Table 1: Temporal and numeric distribution of the data PERIODS SECTIONS WORDS explored corpus TOTALS Corpus Late Middle MEIV (1420-1500) approx. 98,000 213,850 w eModI (1500-1570) approx. 98,000 190,160 w Early Modern eModII (1570-1640) approx. 100,000 189,800 w Helsinki eModIII (1640-1710) approx. 97,000 171,040 w Contemporary 1961 approx. 160,000 ± 1,000,000 w LOB The relevant examples fall into three groups: EX/IT,1 witnessed in (1) above; INV2; and EX. I have preferred to split the INV type into proper INV and EX, the former comprising those declarative sentences in which the sub- ject immediately follows either the full verb -group or the first verbal element, as in (2) above. On the contrary, those examples including material between the verb and the postverbal subject have been labelled ‘EX,’ as instanced in (5) and (6): (5) Nowe schewe+t [vs]object +tan +tis word ‘oure’ +te largenesse and +te curtesye of God oure fadre, (Q M3/4 IR RELT VICES4 p. 100)3 (6) thatnexus is [euil wonne]subj. compl. who shal blame Reynart (Q M4 NI FICT REYNARD p. 9)4 1 In this paper, I will treat EX/IT as a homogeneous thematic system, even though I am aware of the fact that EX/IT of clauses and EX/IT of NPs are usually accounted for in different ways in the relevant literature — for a quick review of the literature on extraposition, see, among others, Reinhart (1980), Baltin (1982), McCawley (1988) and Iwakura (1994), who evaluate traditional studies such as Rosenbaum (1967), Ross (1967), Higgins (1973), Williams (1975), or Emonds (1976). 2 For a quick summary of the theoretical proposals couched in the generative tradi- tion, refer to, for instance, McCawley (1970), Baltin (1982), Chomsky (1986), Coopmans (1989), Rochemont & Culicover (1990), who criticize Emonds (1976), Stowell (1981) and Safir (1985) in detail, and Authier (1992). 3 Francis, W. N. ed. 1942: The Book of Vices and Virtues. A Fourteenth Century En- glish Translation of The Somme le Roi of Lorens d’Orleans, English Text Society, London. 4 Blake, N. F. ed. 1970: The History of Reynard the Fox. Translated from the Dutch Original by William Caxton, English Text Society, London. Syntax and Information hand in hand? ____________________________________________________________________ 97 This EX-class is a two -pronged pattern: on the one hand, it resembles INV on the basis that there is no preverbal subject, either lexical or dummy; and, on the other, it is similar to EX/IT since it is formally identical to the latter, except for the dummy element. In fact, as pointed out in, for instance, Visser (1970), Butler (1980) or Traugott (1992), the appearance of hit, either dummy or demonstrative, was optional in these constructions in OE. Put more graphi- cally, sentences like It is a pity that he went and Is a pity that he went were both possible in OE. 2. DISTRIBUTION OF EX/IT, EX AND INV For reasons of space, three related patterns have been left out of the picture, namely the thematic system of subject-inversion after direct-speech quotes (7), subject-inversions in stage directions or asides (8), and the connection between EX/IT and right-dislocations like (9). (7) “Yea I se,” quoth I, “that … (Q E2 XX PHILO BOETHEL p. 57)1 (8) (^Enter Mistris^) Page, (^Mistris^) Ford, (^Master^) Page, (^Master^) Ford, Pis toll, Nim, Quickly, Host, Shalow. (Q E2 XX COME SHAKESP p. 43)2 (9) It must come now - the showdown between Anne Vardon and her greatest enemy (LOB L22 p. 82)3 Nevertheless, since the systems in (7) and (8) should be doubtlessly regarded as part of the general one of INV, I have just for the record included them in Table 2, which portrays the number of attested examples (under #) and the percentages (under %) with re spect to the whole number of clauses identified in the material selected: Table 2: EX/IT, EX, INV, quotes and stage directions EX/IT EX INV Quotes Stage dir. Total # % # % # % # % # % claus. 1 Pemberton, C. ed. 1899: Boethius. Queen Elizabeth’s Englishings of Boethius. Early English Text Society, London. 2 The Merry Wives of Windsor. Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories and Tragedies. A Facsimile Edition Prepared by H. Hoekeritz with an Introduction by C. T. Prouty, Geoffrey Cumberlege & OUP, London. 3 (Anon) “Whispering Tongues Blamed Her.” Secrets, March 4, 1961 (9-11). Javier Pérez Guerra ____________________________________________________________________ 98 lM E 132 2. 6 21 0. 4 304 6. 1 34 0. 6 0 0 4940 eModI 86 2. 1 45 1. 1 334 8. 2 74 1. 8 0 0 4048 eModII 116 1. 9 4 0. 0 164 2. 8 118 2. 0 7 0. 1 5846 eModIII 101 2. 2 4 0. 0 123 2. 7 14 0. 3 8 0. 1 4468 PDE 219 3. 1 0 0 84 1. 2 45 0. 6 0 0 6876 TOTALS 654 2. 5 74 0. 2 1009 3. 8 285 1. 0 15 0. 0 26178 If we put aside the figures corresponding to the quotes triggering inversion and the stage directions, both strategies being highly dependent on the type of text and still operative in PDE as minor thematic systems, Table 2 makes it possible to assess that EX/IT is an active system during the periods under re s earch in about 2-3 per cent of the clauses.1 On the contrary, INV decreases dra matically, its occurrence frequency going from 6.15 per cent in lME and 8.25 in eModEI to simply 1.2 per cent in Cont. English.2 This is in keeping with Jacobsson’s (1951), Fischer’s (1992), Breivik & Swan’s (1994) and Ky tö & Rissanen’s (1993) testimonies of the decline of the INV system. As far as EX is concerned, the numbers attest that its use is very re stricted in both lME and eModE, the zero examples found in PDE not being surprising at all. Apart from concluding that the extraposition of subjects and their re pla- cement with, for instance, dummy its has succeeded in the history of the En - glish language, the data in Table 2 purport further interesting facts. EX/IT is a consolidated thematic system in PDE, compara ble to, for instance, the topi- calization of objects (3.3 per cent of the cases, as pointed out in Pérez Guerra (forthcoming)). INV, far from being as important as in lME and eModEI, re - mains a residual system in our time, possibly limited to a few grammatical environments which automatically trigger inversion. Let us underscore the fact that in the first two periods under consideration, an average number of 7 clauses out of one hundred illustrated some sort of subject-inversion, whereas less than 2 are depicted in PDE. These conclusions are not at odds with the fixation of word -order at all. The consolidation or, better, continuation of the system EX/IT does not wreak havoc with the establishment of a, formally speaking, SV order, since it 1 H0=‘time does not affect EX/IT.’ Correlation results: R-squared=0.13. 2 H0=‘time does not affect INV.’ Correlation results: R-squared=0.71. Syntax and Information hand in hand? ____________________________________________________________________ 99 plausibly incorporates the subject it in first position and, subsequently, the verb. In saying this, I do not mean that EX/IT is used as a means of supporting and fixing SV word -order, which is rejected in, for instance, Butler (1980), but simply that the resulting structure with it as a dummy item in ME is in keeping with the succeeding configuration of English declarative sentences, and thus is not repudiated by ‘analogical’ reasons. On the other hand, as best I can determine, the fact that simple EX (with- out it-insertion) no longer holds in PDE in none of the 6,876 examples identifi- ed in my database demonstrates the tendency already mentioned towards ‘subjected’ sentences, and the avoidance of, let us say, strange material in postverbal position not easily interpretable 1 --not internally subcategorised by the predication, not necessarily agreeing with verb, not bound to any pro - subject, not prosodically detached from the sentence like a dislocated el- ement. With respect to INV, even though it skews previous judgements on the succeeding word -order pattern, it is maintained alive almost as a, in Stucky’s (1987: 379) words, “lexically signaled configurational variant” and not as the “permutational variation” it used to be in earlier English. Put another way, INV in Contemporary English is mostly determined by triggering devices, whereas in ME and eModE (and also in OE, as pointed out by Butler (1980)) the scope of the system was wider, which due to space restrictions I will not have the opportunity to show. In the following sections, I shall limit myself to showing the re sults of re - search in progress concerning two variables: (a) the length of the postverbal subject (§2. 1), and (b) the sort of information it carries (§2. 2). 2. 1. LENGTH OF POSTVERBAL SEGMENTS Table 3 reflects the average length (number of words) of the postverbal sub- ject in the three systems under discussion. It must be mentioned that when t h e rightward constituent comprised 15 words or more, it was given the conventional value of — in further calculations, is numerically translated 1 H0=‘time does not affect EX.’ Correlation results: R-squared=0.39 (0.6 if the eModI data are dis regarded). Javier Pérez Guerra ____________________________________________________________________ 100 as 17. The data between brackets stand for the lowest and highest values registered. Table 3: Length of postverbal subjects EX/IT INV EX lM E 12 (2- ) 3. 1 (1- ) 7. 3 (1- ) eModI 11. 6 (2- ) 5. 4 (1- ) 11. 2 (2- ) eModII 10. 7 (1- ) 4. 1 (1- ) 11 (4- ) eModIII 11. 8 (2- ) 6 (1- ) 12. 7 (7- ) PDE 12. 7 (2- ) 6. 6 (1- ) NO INSTANCES Syntax and Information hand in hand? ____________________________________________________________________ 101 In view of this table, some concluding remarks seem in order: - In broad outline, as ascertained when I dealt with Table 2, the strategy EX/IT shows little variation with respect to the length of the postverbal subject (11- 12 words). This feature helps us demonstrate that the system was already fixed, at least, in ME.1 - EX is more similar to EX/IT rather than to INV on the grounds of the length of the rightward subject. As pointed out above, EX was a clear alternative to EX/IT in OE, which is also corroborated in the ligh t of the results in lME and eModE. - Whereas EX/IT and EX can mostly be explained by, at least, principles of the sort of ‘heavy subjects tend to be extraposed, the figures of INV show smaller subjects, and even short subjects in lME. Unlike in OE (see Stockwell (1984: 576)), it seems to be the case that, in the periods under research, the system is less dependent on subject length, even though a tendency towards longer sub- jects is observed in the course of the eModE period, which, I recognise, does not fall within the purview of the tentative explanation that INV is lexically justified. 2. 2. COMMUNICATIVE POTENTIAL OF POSTVERBAL SEG MENTS To capture the informative content of the rightward subjects in the systems under research, I applied the classification pictured in Table 4 to every post- verbal constituent functioning as the ‘logical subject’ of the sentence. Al- though the typology created ad-hoc may be considered too simplistic since, for instance, it does not individualise repetitions, or the l-type may be presu- med too vague, I strongly believe that it proves sufficiently functional for the syntactic purposes of this study. Table 4: Informative typology referring extralinguistically referring (e) referentiality of the segment element is not textual but extralinguistic (deictic [=Prince’s (1979, 1981) situationally inferrable]) or universal. inguistically referring (r) given, shared segment; the constituent is ex- plicitly mentioned in the previous two -three sentences [=Prin ce’s (1979, 1981) textually evoked] 1 H0=‘time does not affect the length of the EX/IT segment.’ Correlation results: R- squared=0.12. Javier Pérez Guerra ____________________________________________________________________ 102 low referring (l) only some semantic features or a non-head part of the constituent are r [=Prince’s (1979, 1981) inferrable] in the previous two-three sentences, or the distance be tween the segment and its previous semantic or linguistic referent is longer than two -three sentences. nonreferring properly nonreferring (n) new, unshared segment; it is neither semant i- cally nor linguistically evoked in the pre- vious two -three sentences. postreferring (p) the referent of the segment must be found after it (in the following one-two sentences) Syntax and Information hand in hand? ____________________________________________________________________ 103 Examples (10) to (14) illustrate the classification just suggested: (10) And her ys not to be forgotyn of my parte the myghtye and fa ther- lye pro vydence of God, who never fayellethe any man that trwelye putes hym truste yn hyme. (Q E1 NN BIA MOWNTAYNE p. 204)1 [EX: e postverbal segment, since God, etc. belongs to the register of permanent knowledge] (11) And bee it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid That if such Sheriff Goaler or Keeper of Prison being duely su~moned to appeare before the said Justice or Justices of the Peace shall (…) refuse (…) such Sheriff Goaler or Keeper (…) shall … (Q E3 STA LAW STAT7 p. 75)2 [EX/IT: r postverbal segment, since Sheriff Goaler or Keeper of Prison was mentioned in the immediate pre -text] (12) & were made & edefied diuerce temples in his name which after were des troied by the commandment of king Alexander of macedone who perauenture had enuye of his glorie (Q M4 XX PREF CAXTON p. 35)3 [INV: l postverbal segment, since his name is r] (13) aftyr hir tubele & hir gret fere it xuld ben schewyd vn-to hir sowle how +te felyngys xuld ben vndyrstondyn. (Q M4 IR RELT KEMPE p. 55)4 [EX/IT: n postverbal segment, since how the feelings should be understood is informatively brand-new] (14) as is +tis word ‘+tat is,’ (Q M3/4 IR RELT VICES4 p. 102) [INV: p postverbal segment, since this words is followed by its referent] The results of the application of the typology in Table 4 to the examples in the database are sketched in Table 5. 1 Nichols, J. G. ed. 1859: The Autobiography of Thomas Mowntayne. Narratives of the Days of the Reformation, Chiefly from the Manuscripts of John Foxe the Marty- rologist, Camden Society, London. 2 The Statutes of the Realm. Printed by Command of His Majesty King George the Third in Pursuance of an Address of the House of Commons of Great Britain, Daw - sons of Pall Mall, London, 1963 (1820). 3 Crotch, W. J. B. ed. 1956 (1928): The Prologues and Epilogues of William Caxton. Early English Text Society, London. 4 Meech, S. B. & H. E. Allen eds. 1940: The Book of Margery Kempe, Early English Text Society, London. Javier Pérez Guerra ____________________________________________________________________ 104 Table 5: Communicative potential of postverbal subjects (percentages) lM E eModI eModII eModIII PDE r 31. 0 55. 1 40. 2 43. 5 36. 8 e - - - - - EX/IT l 22. 1 15. 5 22. 4 27. 1 39. 6 n 46. 7 29. 4 37. 3 29. 2 23. 5 p - - - - - r 32. 1 11. 8 24. 8 10. 6 11. 4 e 1. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0 - INV l 13. 7 5. 6 26. 7 16. 9 34. 5 n 52. 0 81. 8 45. 9 72. 1 54. 0 p 0. 4 5. 7 1. 7 0. 2 - r 14. 8 8. 4 9. 0 - - e 0 3. 3 - - - EX l 31. 6 27. 9 38. 6 - - n 53. 5 60. 2 52. 2 100 - p 0 - - - - As far as the sort of information carried by the extraposed or inverted constituent is concerned, different proposals can be found in the literature. For instance, the rightward segment in an EX/IT construction is usually surmised to be informatively unshared or new, on the basis that the structure keeps track of the general principle of end-focus — see, among others, Hinds (1975) drawing on Charleston (1960), Enkvist (1979), Creider (1979) or McCawley (1988). On the contrary, there are some others (Svoboda (1968), for instance) who believe that the extraposed subject is constructionally marked as thematic, which is in keeping with its given informative content. Table 5 throws some light onto the aforementioned alternatives and, in fact, casts a great deal of doubt on the generalised assumption. The extrapo- sed segments in EX/IT constructions are, from eModE to PDE, in more than 70 per cent of the cases, either fully (r) or semi- (l) referring, and only nonre - ferring (n) in scarcely 25 out of one hundred examples. It must, however, be mentioned that in lME the percentages of r, n and l were much more balan- ced, not only in the EX/IT system but in the others as well. If we add the re - sults of r and l segments in each of the three systems, we will reach the con- clusion that, in broad outline, 45-50 per cent are referring (r+l) and 45-50 are nonreferring (n) at all. In consequence, from a communicative point of view, Syntax and Information hand in hand? ____________________________________________________________________ 105 the differences between EX/IT, INV and EX in lME were somewhat blurred according to my data.1 Going back to the decrease of nonreferring postverbal subjects in the EX/IT system (just 23. 5 per cent in PDE), especially divergent if compared to the results shown by INV and EX, we must conclude that end-focus does no longer hold as the best justification of the EX/IT system, but syntactic heaviness and length, as already witnessed in the previous section. Regarding INV and EX, we again come across contradictory views about the degree of predictability of the postverbal subjects. Quirk et al (1985) analyse inversion as an end-focus operation, which lets the extraposed or in - verted subject be interpreted as the (generally unshared) focus of the sentence. Similarly, Stockwell (1984: 576) speaks of inverted subjects as “new or suprising”. Takahashi (1992: 138) joins the pragmatic fuctions of these seg- ments, to wit, counter-expectation, surprise, emphasis, suspense and vivid - ness, in his “subtopically -pre sentational-focus-emphasizing function”. And, in the same vein, Jacobsson (1951) and Birner & Ward (1992) assert that the constraint that verbs in INV structures are pragmatically unimportant follows from the fact that the sentence final position is reserved for informatively new segments, and the verb position (sentence initial position) for given segments. On the contrary, Green (1980) holds that in most cases of inversion it is the last part of the sentence that contains old information. In view of Table 5, a first scrutiny reveals that in those periods of which I have enough data EX and INV behave much alike, that is, in more than 50% of the examples the postverbal material is absolutely nonreferring (n), and the levels of full referentiality are dramatically lower. More specifically, only 10- 11% of the entries in eModEIII and PDE are r as far as INV is concerned. Once we embrace the view that the EX strategy disappears since its goal is perfectly accomplished by either EX/IT or INV under the new conditions of, particularly, word-order in English, the data in Table 5 marshal the fact that two strong communicative tendencies must be identified with respect to the two succeeding systems. Whereas the postverbal subjects in EX/IT do not u - sually contain brand-new information, those belonging to INV constructions 1 H0=‘the thematic system (EX/IT, INV, EX) does not affect referentiality (r+l versus n) in lME.’ At 95%-significance two-factor Anova-test, F=0.035 and p=0.96, which leads us to reject H0. Javier Pérez Guerra ____________________________________________________________________ 106 do more easily. Thus, a daunting consequence arises here: informative condi- tions by themselves do not justify EX/IT, whilst it seems to be the case that they are perfectly capable of characterising INV. The mo st obvious flaw of the second part of this statement is how to conciliate the fact hinted in previ- ous sections that INV is, historically speaking, more and more grammaticised, with the consideration that, at the same time, it is the informative configura - tion of English sentences (old information precedes new information) that best describes INV. In this paper I will not attempt the major issue of support - ing either one or the other alternative, but will simply reflect the tendency shown by INV towards an increase of partially referring subjects (l), from 13. 7 in lME to 34. 5 in PDE, which could possibly evidence an inclination against the communicative explanation and, thus, in favour of the lexically con- figurational one. 3. CONCLUDING REMARKS In this paper I have dealt with the thematic systems of subject-extraposition plus it-insertion and subject-inversion, which illustrate the classes of dummy and null syntactic topics, respectively. In treating the aforementioned sys- tems, the identification of a third one, subject-extraposition without it-inser- tion proved pertinent. This third strategy comprised those verb -first examples containing material between the verb and the rightward subject. The relevant proposals found in the literature were confronted with actual data taken from the Helsinki Corpus and the LOB Corpus, which made it possible to trace the evolution of the systems from the end of the Middle En - glish period to present-day language. A statistical presentation of two varia- bles concerning the postverbal subjects, namely their ‘length’ and their ‘communicative potential’ led to interesting conclusions, some of which re - jected part of the generally as sumed proposals. To sum up, once extraposition without dummy -insertion has dis appeared as a configurational alternative, two opposite strategies can be observed. On the one hand, the system involving subject-extraposition with dummy -inser- tion, consolidated in the language as early as in ME times, was shown to mostly follow the principle of ‘h eavy-subject shift, as demonstrated by the average length of the subjects (11-12 words). On the other hand, the tendency of placing segments carrying unshared information seemed to be Syntax and Information hand in hand? ____________________________________________________________________ 107 the rationale tentatively governing subject-inversion, the postverbal subjects in inverted structures conveying brand-new information in more than half of the cases, even though the data showed a progressive increase of semi - referring subjects in later periods. Consequently, EX/IT was described as an exclusively syntactic device which not only fills the subject position with a dummy ele ment, as required by SV conditions, but also succeeds in offering a pattern in which heavy sub- jects do not appear preverbally. Unlike EX/IT, the vast majority of INV-cases cannot be explained by the length-explanation, the communication-based justification not being conclusive either. Further research on the contexts ac- cepting INV would demonstrate that the configurational possibilities of inver- ted structures have noticeably decreased during the period under research. This, in my opinion, points out towards the characterisation of INV as a gram- maticised strategy, on its way to abandoning the ‘club’ of the thematic systems. Javier Pérez Guerra Universidade de Vigo REFERENCES Authier, J. -M. 1992: Iterated CPs and Embedded Topicalization. Linguistic Inquiry 23.2: 329-36. Baltin, M. 1982: A Landing Site Theory of Movement Rules. Linguistic In - quiry 13: 1-38. Birner, B. J. & G. L. Ward. 1992: On the Interpretation of VP Inversion in American English. Journal of Linguistics 28.1: 1-12. Breivik, L. E. & T. Swan. 1994: Initial Adverbials and Word Order in English with Special Reference to the Early Modern English Period. Ed. D. Kastovsky Studies in Early Modern English , Mouton, Berlin (11-43). Butler, M. C. 1980: Grammatically Motivated Subjects in Early English . Texas Linguistic Forum 16. Javier Pérez Guerra ____________________________________________________________________ 108 Charleston, B. 1960: Studies on the Emotional and Affective Means of Ex- pression in Modern English , Francke Verlag, Bern. Chomsky, N. 1986: Barriers, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Coopmans, P. 1989: Where Stylistic and Syntactic Processes Meet: Locative Inversion in English. Language 65.4: 728-51. Creider, Ch. A. 1979: On the Explanation of Transformations. Ed. T. GIVON Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, Academic, NY. Downing, A. & P. Locke. 1992: A University Course in English Grammar, Prentice Hall, New York. Emonds, J. E. 1976: A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure Preserving, and Local Transformations, Academic, New York. Enkvist, N. E. 1979: Marked Focus: Functions and Constraints. Eds S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk , Longman, London (134-52). Fischer, O. 1992: Syntax. Ed. N. Blake The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol II, CUP, Cambridge (207-408). Green, G. 1980: Some Wherefores of English Inversion. Language 56: 582-601. Haegeman, L. 1991: Introduction to Government & Binding Theory, Black- well, Oxford. Halliday, M. A. K. 1967: Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, Part 2, Journal of Linguistics 3: 199-244. Halliday, M. A. K. 1985: An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Arnold, London. Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, U. of Helsinki (Department of English), Helsinki. Higgins, F. R. 1973: On J. Emonds’s Analysis of Extraposition. Ed. J. P. Kimball Syntax and Semantics 2 , Seminar: New York (149-195). Hinds, J. 1975: Passives, Pronouns, and Themes and Rhemes. Glossa 9.1: 79- 106. Syntax and Information hand in hand? ____________________________________________________________________ 109 Iwakura, K. 1994: The Distribution of CP-Trace and the Expletive It. Linguistic Analysis 24: 122-141. Jacobsson, B. 1951: Inversion in English with Special Reference to the Early Modern English Period. Uppsala. Kytö, M. & M. Rissanen 1993: By and By Enters [This] My Artificiall Foole: Searching Syntactic Constructions in the Helsinki Corpus. Eds M. Rissanen, M. Kytö & M. Palander-Collins Early English in the Computer Age: Explora tions through the Helsinki Corpus, Mouton, Berlin (253-66). Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English , University of Oslo (Department of English), Oslo. McCawley, J. D. 1970: English as a VSO Language. Language 46: 286-99. McCawley, J. D. 1988: The Syntactic Phenomena of English . Vols, 1, 2, The U. of Chicago Press, Chicago. Pérez Guerra, J. forthcoming: Topicalization and Left -Dislocation from Late Middle English to Contemporary English. Actas del XVIII Congreso de AEDEAN, U. de Alcalá de Henares, Alcalá de Henares. Postal, P. M. & G. K. Pullum. 1988: Expletive Noun Phrases in Subcategorized Positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19.4: 635-70. Prince, E. F. 1979: On the Given/New Distinction. CLS 15: 362-76. Prince, E. F. 1981: Topicalization, Focus-Movement and Yiddish Movement: A Pragmatic Differentiation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistic Society 7: 249-64. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik. 1985: A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, London. Reinhart, T. 1980: On the Position of Extraposed Clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 621-24. Rochemont, M. S. & P. W. Culicover. 1990: English Focus Constru ctions and the Theory of Grammar, CUP, Cambridge. Rosenbaum, P. 1967: The Grammar of English Predicate Complementation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Javier Pérez Guerra ____________________________________________________________________ 110 Ross, J. R. 1967: Constraints on Variables in Syntax. (Ph. D., Indiana Uni- versity Linguis tics Club, Bloomington. Safir, K. 1985: Syntactic Chains, CUP, London. Stockwell, R. P. 1984: On the History of the Verb -Second Rule in English. Ed. J. FISIAK Historical Syntax, Mouton, Berlin (575-92). Stowell, T. 1981: Origins of Phrase Structure. MIT PhD. Stucky, S. U. 1987: Configurational Variation in English: A Study of Extra - position and Related Matters. Eds G. HUCK and A. OJEDA Syntax and Semantics 20: Discontinuous Constituency, Academic, NY (377- 404). Svoboda, A. 1968: The Hierarchy of Communicative Units and Fields as Il- lustrated by English Attributive Constructions. Brno Studies in En- glish 7: 49-99. Takahashi, K. 1992: Constructionally Presentational Sentences. Lingua 86: 119-48. Traugott, E. C. 1992: Syntax. Ed. R. HOGG The Cambridge History of the English Language (Vol. 1), CUP, Cambridge (168-287). Visser, F. T. 1970: An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part I: Syntactical Units with One Verb, E. J. Brill, Leiden. Williams, E. S. 1975: Small Clauses in English. Ed. J. P. KIMBALL Syntax and Semantics 4 , Academic, New York. * † *