Syntactic Change, Pro-Drop Parameter, Word Order Shifts & Internal Reconstruction – Detailed Study Notes

Syntactic Change: Core Themes Covered in the Lecture

The session revisits last week’s introduction to historical-syntactic change and then widens the discussion to word-order change, inversion, and methods of historical reconstruction. Examples come mainly from English (Old → Modern) but constant cross-reference is made to Italian, French, Sinhala, Tamil, German, etc.

The Extended Projection Principle (EPP)

EPP = “Every clause must have a subject.”
• The subject may be overt (pronounced) or covert (silent).
• Even clauses where no phonetic subject is heard must satisfy the subject requirement semantically or syntactically.
Interfaces: EPP interacts with Theta Theory (every argument gets exactly one thematic role) and with Case Theory (every overt DP needs Case).

Two Kinds of Null Subjects (PRO/pro)

Label	Also called	Typical clause type	Government status	Quick mnemonic
BIG PRO	“capital PRO”	Infinitival / non-finite (English to-clauses)	MUST sit in an ungoverned position	Only in infinitives
small pro	“little pro”	Fully finite clauses	Occupies the canonical subject slot,
satisfies EPP	Only in languages that allow pro-drop

Big PRO in English

Example: “We would like [PRO to leave].”
• The subject inside the infinitival bracket has no phonetic form, but it is semantically controlled by the matrix clause subject (“we”).
• GB terms: the position of PRO is ungoverned; hence PRO cannot occur where a lexical governor (V, N, A, P) has authority.

Government (GB theory refresher)

Governors = lexical heads (V, N, A, P) that assign Case and theta-roles downward.
If a position is governed, PRO cannot occupy it.
Illustration given with VP shells and PP projections showing how V or P governs its complement.

The Pro-Drop (Null-Subject) Parameter

A cross-linguistic ON/OFF switch formulated as:

\text{Does every finite clause require an overt subject?}=\begin{cases}
\text{ON (YES)} & \text{Non-pro-drop languages}\
\text{OFF (NO)} & \text{Pro-drop languages}
\end{cases}

Pro-Drop Languages (Parameter OFF)

Spanish, Italian, Greek, Japanese, Mandarin, Arabic, Sinhala, Tamil …
• Rich verbal agreement morphology frequently correlates with the ability to recover the silent subject (“null subject”) from the verb endings.
• Example (Italian): “Parla italiano.” → subject pronoun ("lui/lei") omitted; agreement –a tells us 3sg.

Non-Pro-Drop Languages (Parameter ON)

English, French, German …
• Require an overt lexical or expletive subject (it, there).
• Ø speaks Italian is ungrammatical in English/French.

Mixed Evidence & Morphological Richness

Sinhala today: permits pro-drop even though verbal agreement is virtually absent – shows that rich agreement is a strong but not strictly necessary correlate.

Diachronic Shift of the Parameter: Old ↔ Modern English

Old English (OE) allowed null pronominal subjects; Modern English (ModE) does not.
• OE example glossed: “Ø sceal weorðan …” (‘shall become’).
Explanation: during acquisition children increasingly heard sentences with overt pronouns; over generations the parameter flipped from OFF → ON.
This illustrates how parameter settings can change through historical time.

Word-Order Change and Case Marking

Basic Typological Facts

Languages classify according to canonical order of Subject (S), Object (O), Verb (V):
– Predominant types: SOV, SVO, VSO (others rarer).
Distinguishing subject vs. object can be done via:
– Morphological case, or
– Rigid word order, or
– Both.

Old English → Middle/Modern English

OE had an extensive case system, therefore more flexible word order.
Main clauses showed verb-second (V2): the finite verb occupies the second position regardless of what precedes it. Example patterns:
– S V O (when subject initial)
– XP V S O (when topicalizing an adverb, object, etc.)
Embedded clauses and object-pronoun clauses often S O V.
Loss of overt case endings in Middle English made word order the primary cue. Fixed Subject–Verb–Object (SVO) order emerged as default.

Evidence from Morphological Fossils

Compounds like “apple-tree, bread-knife” (object + verb/noun) preserve relic SOV ordering.
Early Germanic inscription “ek HlewagastiR holtijaR horna tawido” (‘I, Hlewagastir Holtijar, made the horn’) exhibits S O V pattern.

Inversion in Yes–No Questions

Stage	What may move to preverbal position?	Example
Old / Middle English	Any finite verb (lexical or auxiliary)	“Speak they?” / “Can they speak?”
Modern English	ONLY auxiliaries; lexical verbs need DO-support	“Can they speak?” vs. *“Speak they?” (✱)

German still allows lexical verb inversion: “Ich gehe.” → “Gehe ich?”
Tracks a syntactic change where head-movement became restricted to functional (auxiliary) heads.

Other Historical-Syntactic Phenomena Mentioned

Evolution of pronominal binding (reflexives, reciprocals, etc.).
Discontinuous noun-phrase structures.
Loss or development of agreement markers.
Shifts in placement of complementizers and clitics.

Internal Reconstruction: Methodological Primer

Purpose

Infer older stages of one language using only internal alternations and irregularities—no comparison with sister languages required.

Key Concepts

Attested vs. Unattested stages
• Attested = documented in manuscripts, inscriptions, recordings.
• Unattested = no direct record; must be reconstructed.
Asterisk (*) marks a reconstructed (hypothetical) form, distinct from the ✱ that marks “ungrammatical” in synchronic syntax.
Result notation: “Pre-English”, “Pre-Sinhala”, etc.
Recovers conditional changes (context-sensitive) better than unconditional ones.

Classic English Example

Alternation long ~ long-er vs. strong ~ strong-er

Observe nasalisation: /ŋg/ → /ŋ/ before a now-lost /g/.
Reconstruct underlying forms: *lɔŋg,\ *strɔŋg → later /g/ deletes after /ŋ/, leaving nasal trace.

Workflow

List morphophonemic alternations, suppletions, irregular paradigms.
Posit a “more regular” earlier form.
Formulate a historical rule (sound change, analogy, etc.) that derives the modern irregular surface forms.
Label the earlier stage with an asterisk (Pre-X).

Comparative vs. Internal Reconstruction (Contrast)

Internal: one language, exploits alternations inside that language.
Comparative: two or more related languages, reconstructs their common ancestor (the proto-language).
Often combined: internal reconstruction may push a stage further back before applying comparative reconstruction to a language family.

Ethical, Philosophical & Practical Take-Aways

Parameter-based change reminds us language is a biological-cognitive system subject to child acquisition pressures.
Null-subject hierarchies raise questions about how much morphology is needed to license silent syntax.
Language documentation is crucial; unattested stages force us into hypotheticals.
Reconstruction (internal or comparative) is probabilistic, never absolute—hence the asterisk.

Key Terms Glossary

• EPP (Extended Projection Principle)
• PRO (big) vs. pro (little)
• Governor / Government (GB theory)
• Pro-drop / Null-Subject Parameter
• Expletive / Dummy subject
• SOV, SVO, V2
• Inversion, DO-support
• Internal Reconstruction, Comparative Method
• Attested / Unattested, Asterisk notation

Connections to Previous & Future Lectures

• Builds on last week’s introduction to syntactic change and PRO-theory.
• Provides groundwork for the upcoming lecture on the Comparative Method and additional reconstruction techniques.