 \documentclass [a4paper, 12 pt]{article}
    \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
    \usepackage[cyr]{aeguill}
    \usepackage{tipa}
    \usepackage{eurosym}
    \usepackage{wasysym}
    \usepackage {linguex}
    \usepackage {xyling}
    \usepackage {natbib}
    \usepackage{setspace}
    \usepackage{amsfonts}
    \usepackage{phonetic}
    \usepackage{titlesec}


\titleformat{\section}{\normalsize \bfseries}{\thesection}{1em}{\emph}
\titleformat{\subsection}{\normalsize \rmfamily}{\thesubsection}{1em}{\emph}
\titleformat{\subsubsection}{\normalsize \rmfamily}{\thesubsubsection}{1em}{\emph}

\renewcommand{\rmdefault}{ptm}




\pagestyle{myheadings}
\markboth{}{\scriptsize{\emph{Postverbal subjects in Old English and Old French}}}

% \strikeout{text}: prints a struck-out version of #1
\newlength{\howlong}
\newcommand{\strikeout}[1]{
 \settowidth{\howlong}{#1}%
 #1\unitlength0.5ex%
 \begin{picture}(0,0)
 \put(0,1){\line(-1,0){\howlong\divide\unitlength}}
 \end{picture}%
}

\setcounter{secnumdepth}{4}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{4}


\doublespacing

\title{Postverbal subjects in Old English and Old French}
\author{Christine Meklenborg Salvesen \& Kristin Bech, University of Oslo\\ c.m.salvesen@ilos.uio.no \space k.bech@ilos.uio.no}
\date{\today}

\bibpunct[:~]{(}{)}{;}{a}{,}{,}


\begin{document}

\maketitle

\section{Introduction}

This paper investigates subjects in postverbal position in Old English (OE, 700 -- ca. 1100) and Old French (OF, 842 -- ca. 1350) against the backdrop of the verb-second (V2) phenomenon  (for OE see among others \citet{Pintzuk-93, Pintzuk-99, Haeberli-2000, Haeberli-2002, Pintz-Haeb, Walden-thesis, Walkden}); for OF, see among others \citet{thurneysen, Foulet, Adams-2, Adams, Roberts-verbs, Vance-97, Labelle-OF}.
In the OE example in \Next, the adverbial prepositional phrase \emph{on {\th}isum geare} `in this year' precedes the finite verb \emph{heold} `held', which again is followed by the subject \emph{se cyng Henri} `king Henry'. In the OF example in \NNext, the nominal adverb \emph{toute cele semeinne et l' autre apres} 'all week, and the week after' is in clause-initial position, and the subject \emph{boorz} follows the finite verb \emph{demora} `stayed'.


\exg. On {\th}isum geare heold se cyng Henri his hired to Cristesm{\ae}ssan {\ae}t Westmynstre\\
	in this year held the king Henry his household at Christmas at Westminster\\
	`In this year, at Christmas, king Henry held his household at Westminster' 	\hfill(ChronE 35)
	\exg. toute cele semeinne et l' autre apres demora boorz en l' ostel le roi artu entre lui et sa compaignie\\
all this week and the other after stayed Bors in the household the king Arthur between him and his company\\
`All week, and the week after, Bors stayed in the household of king Arthur together with his men.' \hfill	(MoA 34)

The V2 constraint is found in all modern Germanic languages with the noteworthy exception of Modern English. As we saw in \LLast and \Last, it implies that the finite verb is found in second position of the clause, regardless which  element is in first position. The verb may be preceded by the subject as in \Next[a]. If, however, an XP other than the subject precedes the finite verb, as in \Next[b], the subject occurs postverbally.

\ex.
\ag. Det er kaldt i dag.\\
It is cold in day\\
`It is cold today.' \hfill(Norwegian)
\bg. I dag er det kaldt.\\
in day is it cold\\
`Today it is cold.' \hfill	(Norwegian)

However, both OE and OF also have numerous non-V2 sentences that apparently contradict their status as V2 languages, as in \Next and \NNext, where the verb occurs in third position. In addition, both present-day languages are SVO languages. In this respect, English is unique among the Germanic languages and French unique among the Romance languages.


\exg. Et quant il l'aper\c{c}oit, il est trop dolenz\\
and when he it-discovers he is too suffering\\
`And when he discovers this, he becomes very sad' \hfill 	(Tr 273)

\exg. {\th}a deor hi hata{\dh} hranas\\
	the deer they call reindeer\\
		`they call the deer reindeer'	\hfill (Or 15)



In \citet{Bech-Salve-13} we analyzed clauses with a preverbal subject, and we showed that despite the superficial similarities between OE and OF the languages are fundamentally different. First, declarative main clauses in OF have the finite verb in a structurally high position, whereas OE main clauses may have the verb in a high or a low position. This variation in OE makes the language difficult to analyze, as it is supposed that the grammar is \emph{mixed} \citep{Lightfoot-79, Lightfoot} so that some clauses are head-final, others head-initial. In many cases it is obvious that the finite verb sits in a very low position (e.g. verb-final) \Next[a]; in other cases it is impossible to tell whether the verb sits high or low in the structure \Next[b].

\ex.
\ag. Monigre geara tida ofer ealle Breotone ic flyma w{\ae}s\\
many.\textsc{gen.pl} year.\textsc{gen.pl} time.\textsc{gen.pl} over all Britain I fugitive was\\
`For many a year I have been a fugitive throughout all Britain' \hfill	(ApT 128)
\bg. For{\dh}am ic {\dh}e l{\ae}re {\th}{\ae}t {\th}u fleo and beorge {\th}inum life. \\
therefore I  you teach that you flee and save your life\\
`Therefore I counsel you to flee, and save your life.' \hfill	( ApT 12)

However, even disregarding the V-late clauses in OE, we find that the grammars are very different. In our corpus of OF, we never find an argument moved in front of the finite verb when the subject is preverbal. This is not the case in OE. Based on this, we have claimed that only one element may move in front of the finite verb in OF, whereas at least two elements may be moved there in OE. We believe the restriction found in OF is the reflection of a syntactic constraint that requires one and only one element to be moved across the finite verb. In OE no such syntactic constraint exists, and elements are moved in front of the finite verb in order to check information-structural features.

As we have already looked at clauses with preverbal subjects, we will now look at clauses where the subject occurs after the finite verb. Considering the differences between the two languages in the clauses we have already analyzed, we want to know if similar differences may be observed when the subject occurs in postverbal position.

The outline of this paper is as follows. In section \ref{method} we describe the method used, and in section \ref{keydata} we present the key data. In section \ref{data} we take a closer look at the distribution of the different kinds of subjects with respect to type (pronoun vs. DP), as well as with respect to other elements in the clause. In section \ref{syntax} we attempt to give a syntactic account of the patterns we observe, and in section \ref{infostr} we outline what effects may potentially be ascribed to the information structure. Finally, in section \ref{conclusion} we pull the threads together and present the conclusion.


\section{Method}\label{method}
The study is based on prose texts. In the case of OE, the data stem from five different texts: \emph{Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People} (Bede, manuscripts first half of 10th cent.), \emph{Orosius} (Or, manuscripts early 10th cent. and 11th cent.), \emph{{\AE}lfric's Lives of Saints} ({\AE}LS, manuscript early 11th cent.), \emph{Apollonius of Tyre} (ApT, manuscript mid-11th cent.), and the \emph{Peterborough Chronicle} (ChronE, manuscript first half of 12th cent.). The total number of excerpted clauses is 1,496 declarative main clauses, out of which 589 clauses have the subject in postverbal position.

The Old French data are taken from two prose texts: \emph{Le roman de Tristan en prose} (Tr, ca. 1230) and \emph{La Mort Artu} (MoA, ca. 1240). The total number of declarative main clauses is 1,821, out of which 338 have the subject in postverbal position. References to both texts indicate the paragraph.

\section{Key data}\label{keydata}
The distribution of word order with respect to the internal order of subject and verb is presented in figure \ref{key}.


\bigskip

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{||l|rr|rr||}\hline \hline
&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Old English}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Old French}\\
&no. & \%&no. & \%\\\hline
Preverbal subjects	& 907	& 60.6 & 932	& 51.2 	\\
Postverbal subjects	& 589	& 39.4 & 338	& 18.6 	\\
Null subjects			&--&--& 551	& 30.3  \\\hline
Total	& 1,496	& 100.0 	& 1,821	& 100.1 \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The distribution of pre- and postverbal subjects in OE and OF}\label{key}
\end{figure}

\bigskip


We see that postverbal subjects are less frequent than preverbal or null subjects. In OE, they constitute around 40\% of our selection; in OF only around 18\%. The reason for this difference may be that OF allows null subjects, and these occur when an XP other than the subject precedes the finite verb (as initially observed by \citet{Foulet}). In other words: the language user had the choice between omitting the subject altogether or expressing it in a postverbal position when something other than the subject preceded the finite verb. Our data show that omitting the pronominal subject was more common than expressing it. In \Next[a] the subject has been omitted, and in \Next[b] it is expressed. Both clauses have the adverb \emph{mieuz} `better' in clause-initial position (the conjunction \emph{car} 'for' does not count for this purpose).

\ex.
\ag. Mieuz vodroient rendre le tre\"{u} que lor peres avoit rendu. \\
better would give the tribute than their father had given\\
`They would rather give [them] the tribute that their father had given.' \hfill (T292)
\bg. car mieuz voudroit il estre toz jorz en servaige.\\
for better want he be all days in slavery\\
`for he would prefer to remain a slave all his days' \hfill(Tr 289)

We will not consider null subjects in this paper.



When we consider the clauses with postverbal subject, we get the following distribution.



\bigskip

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r|r||}\hline \hline
&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Old English}&\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{Old French}\\
&no. & \%&no. & \%\\\hline
VS	& 98	& 16.6 	& 60	& 17.8 \\
VSX	& 393	& 66.7 	& 245	& 72.5 \\
VXS	& 66	& 11.2 	& 20	& 5.9 \\
VXSX	& 32	& 5.4 	& 13	& 3.8 \\ \hline
Total	& 589	& 99.9 	& 338	& 100.0  \\\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The distribution of word order with postverbal subjects} \label{overall}
\end{figure}

\bigskip

 Table \ref{overall} shows that most of the sentences have material after the subject (VSX and VXSX) -- around 70\% in both languages. We also see that in many cases (VXS and VXSX), material may intervene between the finite verb and the subject. What interests us is to know what kind of material may occur in this intermediate position and also if there is a difference between pronominal and full DP subjects (henceforth DP subjects).


\section{Subjects and other elements in the clause}\label{data}
We know that the postverbal subjects may occupy different positions also in Germanic languages. In an overview, \citet{Haeberli-2000} shows how closely related languages, such as German and West Flemish on the one hand or Norwegian and Danish on the other, may behave differently with respect to the position of DP subjects. Whereas German and Norwegian permit adverbials between the finite verb and the postverbal DP subject \Next[a and c], West Flemish and Danish do not \Next[b and d]. All examples from Haeberli (2000); translations added by us.

\ex.\label{tysk}
\ag. Wahrscheinlich wird (sp\"{a}ter) Hans dieselbe Uhr kaufen\\
probably will (later) Hans the-same watch buy\\
`Hans will probably buy the same watch later.' \hfill(German)
\bg. Misschein goa (*loater) Jan tzelfste orloge kuopen\\
probably go (later) Hans the-same watch buy\\
`Hans will probably buy the same watch later.' \hfill(West Flemish)
\cg. Denne klokka hadde (seinere) min gamle far kj{\o}pt\\
this watch had (later) my old father bought\\
`My old father had later bought this watch.' \hfill (Norwegian)
\dg. Dette ur vil (*senere) min far k{\o}be.\\
this watch will (later) my father buy\\
`My father will buy this watch later.' \hfill (Danish).

Adverbs intervening between the verb and the subject are, however, only possible with DP subjects. When the subject is pronominal, it must be adjacent to the finite verb when it occurs in postverbal position.

\ex.
\ag. Wahrscheinlich wird (*sp\"{a}ter) er dieselbe Uhr kaufen\\
probably will (later) he the-same watch buy\\
`He will probably buy the same watch later.' \hfill(German, from \citet{Haeberli-2000})
\bg. Denne klokka hadde (*seinere) han kj{\o}pt.\\
this watch had (later) he bought\\
`He had later bought this watch.' \hfill (Norwegian)

It is important to note that this difference is not the result of cliticization. In the examples in \Last, the pronouns are not clitics, even though it may be argued that the pronoun in Norwegian is weak in the sense of \citet{Car-Stark}.\footnote{Colloquial Norwegian does, however, have pronominal clitics, which are to be considered as simple clitics in the terminology of \citet{Zwicky-77}. These are \emph{'a} 'she' and \emph{'n} 'he' and are as such distinguishable from the weak pronominal forms.}

The difference between the two patterns may be explained by the subjects occupying two different positions in the structural hierarchy. In order to determine what positions these are in the case of OE and OF, we will look at the distribution of pronominal and DP subjects with respect to non-finite verbs, adverbials, and other arguments. In doing so we will deviate from \citet{Haeberli-2000}, who only considers adjuncts (adverbials in our terminology).

\subsection{Pronominal subjects and full DP subjects}\label{pron-DP}

When analyzing our collection of clauses, we distinguish between DP subjects, pronominal subjects and other. The group \emph{other} is highly heterogenous and comprises clausal subjects (only OE), quantifiers, and also pronouns that are not pronominal (such as the demonstrative \emph{cil} 'that one' in OF). \footnote{In the OE data: Seven clauses with an appositional subject (e.g. \emph{he, the king}) have been omitted, as well as five clauses in which the pronominal subject was postmodified (typically relative clauses of the kind he who serves God). The four pronominal subjects in the VXSX pattern are all instances of \emph{mon} `one'. In the category `other', all the subjects are clausal subjects in the OE data.}

When we look at figure \ref{DP-pron}, which shows how the different types of subjects are distributed with respect to the different word orders, we see that the distribution in OE and OF is remarkably similar. In both languages the pronominal subject must follow the finite verb immediately. We may thus conclude that the pronominal subject may not be separated from the finite verb when it occurs postverbally. The same observation was made by \citet{Vance-97} for OF.

We also see that DPs are preferred if the subject is in clause-final position, and that pronominal subjects occur in such a position less than 5\% of the time. The DP subject may be separated from the finite verb in both languages.


\bigskip

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{||l|r r|r r|r r|r r|r r|rr||}\hline \hline
&\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Old English}&\multicolumn{6}{|c||}{Old French}\\
&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{DP}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{pronoun}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{other}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{DP}&\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{pronoun}&\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{other}\\
&no. & \% &no. & \%&no. & \%&no. & \%&no. & \%&no. & \%\\\hline
VS&	76&	20.2  &	8&	4.7  &	13&	43.3  &	42&	26.9  &	7&	4.4  &	11&	50.0  \\
VSX&	227&	60.4  &	159&	93.0  &	0&	0.0  &	84&	53.8  &	153&	95.6  &	8&	36.4  \\
VXS&	46&	12.2  &	0&	0  &	17&	56.7  &	18&	11.5  &	0&	0.0  &	2&	9.1  \\
VXSX&	27&	7.2  &	4&	2.3  &	0&	0.0  &	12&	7.7  &	0&	0.0  &	1&	4.5  \\ \hline
Total&	376&	100.0  &	172&	100.0  &	30&	100.0  &	156&	99.9  &	160&	100.0  &	22&	100.0  \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Subject types with the different word orders} \label{DP-pron}
\end{figure}


\ex. \textbf{Pronominal subject adjacent to the finite verb}
\ag. Enfant, mar fustes vos onques n{\'{e}} et engendr{\'{e}}!\\
child badly were you ever born and conceived\\
`Child, cursed be your conception and birth.' \hfill(Tr 288)
\bg. {\th}a wundrade he swi{\dh}e\\
then wondered he much\\
`then he wondered much' \hfill (Bede 114)


\ex. \textbf{DP subject separated from the finite verb}
\ag. Bien nos a fait Diex grant honor et grant misericorde\\
well us has done God big honour and big grace\\
`God has shown us great honour and big grace.'\hfill(Tr 304)
\bg. {\th}a becom hyre on hand {\th}{\ae}s halgan apostoles lar\\
then came her on hand the holy apostle's doctrine\\
`then came into her hands the holy apostle's doctrine' \hfill ({\AE}LS 26)


\bigskip

\subsection{Subjects and objects}\label{objects}
The next point to consider, is the position of non-pronominal subjects with respect to objects in the text. As we have already established that pronominal subjects are always adjacent to the finite verb, we know that they will always precede the non-finite verb, and they are thus not included here. In the case of OF, pronominal objects have been excluded as well, as these are always clitics on the verb. In OE, there are no pronominal clitics \citep{Bech}, so pronominal objects have been included in Table \ref{objekter}.




\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r||}\hline \hline
&Old English&Old French\\ \hline
DP subject -- DP object &44&12\\
DP object -- DP subject  &4&1\\
DP subject -- Pron. object&6&--\\
Pron. object -- DP subject &14&--\\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The distribution of DP objects and pronominal objects}\label{objekter}
\end{figure}

In OE, the DP subject almost always precedes the DP object \Next.

\exg. 7 bera{\dh} {\th}a Cwenas hyra scypu ofer land on {\dh}a meras\\
and carry the Kvens their ships over land into the lakes\\
`and the Kvens carry their ships over land into the lakes' \hfill  (Or 15)

In our data, the DP object precedes the subject in four sentences. In these cases, the subject is both \textsc{heavy} and \textsc{new}, hence the clause-late position. Consider examples \Next and \NNext.

\ex.
\ag. Swelce eac to{\ae}tecte {\th}isse gedrefnisse storm S{\ae}berhtes dea{\dh} Eastseaxna cyninges  \\
	so also increased this.GEN confusion.GEN storm S{\ae}berth's dead Eastsaxons.GEN king \\
	`The death of S{\ae}berht, king of the East Saxons, also increased the tempest of this 	confusion' \hfill (Bede 112)
\bg. H{\ae}fde {\ae}rest {\th}isses gemetes rice {\AE}lle Su{\dh}seaxna cyning \\
	had first this.GEN measure.GEN power {\AE}lle Southsaxons.GEN king\\
	'{\AE}lle, king of the South Saxons, was the first who had power of this measure'
	(Bede 108)

In \Last[a], the subject, \emph{S{\ae}berhtes dea{\dh} Eastseaxna cyning} `the death of S{\ae}berht, king of the East Saxons' is both \textsc{new} and \textsc{heavy}, hence it is placed after the object \emph{{\th}isse gedrefnisse storm} `the tempest of this 	confusion', which is also \textsc{heavy}, but conveys \textsc{given} information. The same is the case in \Last[b], where \emph{{\th}isses gemetes rice} 'power of this measure' is \textsc{given} and \textsc{heavy}, whereas the subject \emph{{\AE}lle Su{\dh}seaxna cyning} `{\AE}lle, king of the South Saxons' is \textsc{new} and \textsc{heavy}.




In OF the subject almost always precedes the DP object. Some of these objects are modified, so that weight may come into play, but others are plain DPs, as in \Next[a]. The only exception in our data is the example in \Next[b], where the object \emph{Tristan} precedes the subject \emph{la longe maladie qu'il avoit e\"{u}e} 'the long illness that he had suffered'. In this case the word order has most likely been dictated by weight.


\ex.
\ag.Ensi chastie Gorvenal son menistre \\
this-way warned Gorvenal his master\\
`This way Gorvenal warned his master.'\hfill(Tr 254)
\bg. car mout avoit empiri{\'{e}} Tristan la longe maladie qu' il avoit e\"{u}e. \\
for much had worsened Tristan the long illness that he had had\\
`For the long illness he had suffered had made Tristan much worse.' \label{maladie} \hfill(Tr 317)




\subsection{Postverbal subjects and adverbs}\label{adverbs}

The position of adverbs may provide us with information about the exact position of the subject. According to \citet{Cinq-adv}, adverbs are the specifiers of functional heads, and their order is hierarchically organized cross-linguistically.

In OE, negation is clitizised on the verb, unlike in OF, where it may occur before and after the subject. Therefore, in the case of OF, we have counted the negation as an X-element in our tables. We have already shown that personal pronouns are not separated from the finite verb, and this is also the case when the verb is negated. This was first observed for OF by \citet{Vance-97}, and our data confirms this. The pronominal subject always precedes negation \Next[a]; the DP subject follows it \Next[b].

\ex.
\ag. Or nel feroie je pas! \\
now NEG-it do I NEG\\
`Now I will not do it.' \hfill (Tr 279)
\bg. icele nuit n ala pas mes sire gauvains a cort\\
this night NEG went NEG my sir Gauvain to court\\
`This night did not sir Gauvain go to court.' \hfill(MoA 25)

We have looked at the cases where DP subjects co-occur with adverbials, in order to see what adverbs may precede the subject and what elements may follow it.

In OF, the adverbs that precede the DP subject are typically short adverbs. In addition to the negation \emph{pas} we find \emph{lors} `then', \emph{ja} `already', \emph{tant} `so much'.

\exg. et estoit ja li tornoiemenz si pleniers qu[e] ...\\
and was already the tournament so full that\\
`And there were already so many people at the tournament that ...' \hfill (MoA 16)\label{ab}

There is also one instance of two adverbs (\emph{lors} 'then' and the PP \emph{par devant} 'in front of') preceding the DP subject, but in that case the subject is very heavy, containing a relative subclause.

\exg. Si passa lors par devant li uns nens qui mout savoit des choses qui estoient a venir.\\
SI passed then for front the one dwarf that much knew of things that were to come\\
`Then, right in front of them, came the dwarf who knew a lot about the things to come.' \hfill(Tr 259)\label{nens}

Adverbials that follow the subject are typically longer, such as DPs \Next[a] and modified adverbs \Next[b].

\ex.
\ag. En cele chambre fu Tristanz dis jorz entiers\\
in this room was Tristan ten days whole\\
`Tristan spent then full days in this room.' \hfill(Tr 314)
\bg. cele nuit dormi mes sire gauvains moult petit\\
this night slept my sir Gauvain much little\\
`This night sir Gauvain slept very little.'\hfill (MoA 30)


However, we also find the adverb \emph{leanz} 'inside' following the DP subject \Next. This is interesting, because this is one of the adverbs \citet[70--74]{Vance-97} discusses. In her data, \emph{leanz} may occur on both sides of the DP subject. As we do not have more than three occurrences of \emph{leanz} with DP subjects in our selection, we conclude that this may be due to chance.

\exg.einsi remest Lancelos leanz toute jor\\
this-way remained Lancelot inside all day\\
`This way Lancelot remained inside all day.' \hfill (MoA 15)

In OE there are several examples with longer adverbs between the finite verb and the DP subject. Just as we saw in \ref{nens}, the adverbs may also cluster in this position, as in \Next.


\exg. 7 hym w{\ae}s {\dh}a twegen dagas on {\dh}{\ae}t b{\ae}cbord {\th}a igland {\th}e in Denemearce hyra{\dh} \\
and him was then two days on the port the islands that to Denmark belong\\
`and then, for two days he had the islands that belong to Denmark on the port side' \hfill(Or 16)


We also find DP subjects following short adverbs, such as \emph{a} 'always' in \Next.

\exg. him w{\ae}s a wids{\ae} on {\th}{\ae}t b{\ae}cbord\\
	him was always widesea on the port\\
	`there was always a wide sea on the port side' \hfill ((Or 14)\label{aa}


As we saw in  \ref{ab} and \ref{aa}, in both OE and OF, the DP subject may appear after low IP adverbs. \citet{Vance-97} suggests that in the case of adverbs such as \emph{puis} `then', \emph{or} `now' \emph{bien} `well', \emph{pas} `not', \emph{mie} `not', the DP subject sits under SpecTP. However, given the insight into adverbial hierarchies provided by \citet{Cinq-adv}, this analysis is not felicitous. Cinque establishes the following hierarchy \Next of adverbs, which is taken to be a universal.

 \ex. \emph{g{\'{e}}n{\'{e}}ralement} `generally', \emph{habituellement} `normally' > \emph{pas} `not' > \emph{d{\'{e}}j{\`{a}}} `already', \emph{(pas) encore} `(not) yet' > \emph{plus} `more', \emph{encore} `again' > \emph{toujours} `always', \emph{jamais} `never' > \emph{compl{\`{e}}tement} `completely', \emph{partiellement} `partially' > \emph{tout} `all', \emph{rien} `nothing' > \emph{bien} `well', \emph{mal} `badly'

 Even though Cinque does not map the adverbial hierarchy onto the existing domains (CP, IP and VP), it is clear that an adverb such as \emph{bien} `well' sits very low in the structure. In the literature, adverbs corresponding to \emph{well} are taken to mark the border between the IP-field and the vP-field. We take occurrences of DP subjects following adverbs such as \emph{bien} `well' as an indication that the DP subject has not evacuated the vP. In fact, that the DP subject precedes an adverb such as \emph{leanz} 'inside' is not at all problematic. \emph{Leanz} often occurs as the obligatory adverb with unaccusative verbs, and as such it is generated as the complement of V \Next.

\exg. celui jor demora Lancelos leanz\\
that day stayed Lancelot inside\\
`That day Lancelot stayed inside.' \hfill(MoA -13)

Our data for OF does not provide us with any indications that the postverbal DP subject has in fact moved into the IP-field. In OE, we saw in \ref{aa} that the adverb \emph{a} `always' precedes the subject. `Always' is not one of the adverbs that are sensed to mark the border between the IP and the vP, but sits in the middle of the hierarchy. As such we may not categorically say that the subject has not moved out of the vP in OE, but we may say that it has not moved to the upper part of the IP-field. 
 

\subsection{Subjects and complex verb phrases}\label{complex}

It is not only adverbs and objects that may separate the DP subject from the finite verb. In complex verb phrases the the subject may also follow the non-finite verb. The distribution of non-finite verbs and the DP subjects is presented in Table \ref{nonfin}.


\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r||}\hline \hline
&Old English &Old French\\
X= nonfinite&DP subject&DP subject\\\hline
VSX&45&12\\
VXS&13&10\\
VXSY&5&5\\\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The DP subject and the non-finite verb}\label{nonfin}
\end{figure}




\subsubsection{Non-finite verbs and DPs in OF}
When we look at different verb types and constructions in figure \ref{type}, we see that the subject is most likely to occur after the non-finite verb with most kinds of verbs and constructions. Note that we look at the construction on the top level of the clause. The types above the line (transitive, unaccusative and copula) are \emph{types} of verbs. The types below the line are different kinds of constructions that may be combined with certain types of verbs. For example, both an unaccusative and a transitive verb may occur with a modal auxiliary.


\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{||l|r|r|r|}\hline \hline
type of construction&VSX&VXS(Y)\\ \hline
transitive & 2&6\\
unaccusative & 1 & 3 \\
copule & 1 & 0\\\hline
passive & 2 & 6\\
modal & 2 & 1 \\
factive & 4 & 0 \\ \hline
total & 12&16\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Type of verb with respect to postverbal DP subjects in OF}\label{type}
\end{figure}


The only type of construction where the subject always precedes the non-finite verb, is the factive, where an infinitive follows the factive verb \emph{faire} 'make' \Next.

\exg. A l' endemain apr{\'{e}}s ore de prime fist li rois venir sa fille devant li en une soe chambre.\\
on the following-day after hour of first made the king come his girl before him in one his chamber\\
`The following day, after the first hour, the king summoned before him the girl in one of his private chambers.' \hfill(Tr 382)

We see that the subject follows the non-finite verb with both unaccusatives, passives and ordinary transitives. As we know that the subject is generated in object position in unaccusative and passive constructions \citep{Perlmutter-78, HPH-uakkusativ, Legendre-Sorace}, it is not unexpected that these subjects follow the participle. This word order would simply reflect that the subject sits in its base position \Next[a]. We note, however, that this is not an obligatory position for the subject \Next[b].

\ex.
\ag.Si estoient la venu li baron de maint reaume\\
SI were there come the noblemen of many kingdoms\\
`The noblemen from many kingdoms had come there.' \hfill(Tr 316)
\bg. et por ce qu il ne pueent mie assembler a leur volente quant vos i estes, est Lancelos remes, qu il n ira pas au tornoiement de wincestre\\
and for that what they NEG can NEG assemble at their will when you there are is Lancelot remained for he NEG goes NEG to-the tournament of Wincester\\
`And because they can not get together when they want to when you are there, Lancelot stayed behind as he is not going to the tournament of Wincester.' \hfill(MoA 6)


More surprisingly, we observe that also with transitive verbs, the subject normally follows the participle. This cannot be ascribed to weight only, as only the clause in \ref{maladie} has a particularly heavy subject. In the other cases, the subjects are fairly short \Next.

\ex.
\ag. Et por la bont{\'{e}} de li l' a \c{c}a envoi{\'{e}} la ro\"{i}ne d' Yrlande\\
and for the goodness of her her has there sent the queen of Ireland\\
`And because of her goodness, the queen of Ireland has sent him/her there.' \hfill(Tr 304) \label{Yrlande}
\bg. et por la proesce de li l' avoit retenu li Morholz en sa compaignie\\
and for the courage of him him had kept the Morholt in his company\\
`and Morholt had kept him in his company because of his courage. \hfill(Tr 287)

A final point to make is the behaviour of factives in OF. Unlike the other constructions, the subject of the factive is not generated in the same vP as the non-finite verb. In factive constructions the subject of the factive verb is not the subject of the non-finte verb. We take it that the subject and the infinitive have not been merged in the same projection, and that the factive infinitive is more deeply embedded than the infinitive in modal constructions. This may explain why subjects may not follow the infinitive.

\subsubsection{Non-finite verbs and DPs in OE}
In OE there are very few examples with complex verb phrases that constitute a tense (such as the perfect in modern English). The majority of the constructions are passive constructions, and modal constructions. What we see is essentially the same pattern as in OF: In passive constructions, the subject may precede \Next[a] and follow \Next[b] the non-finite verb. Recall that the subject of a passive verb is generated in object position, so that there must have been some kind of movement if the subject precedes the participle.


\ex.
\ag. {\th}{\ae}r wear{\dh} Marsepia sio cwen ofslagen\\
there was Marsepia the queen killed\\
`there Queen Marsepia was killed' \hfill   (Or 30)
\bg. and w{\ae}ran gegeorcode {\th}a re{\dh}an myta\\
and were prepared the cruel tortures\\
`and the cruel tortures were prepared.' \hfill ({\AE}ls 36)

There is only one example with a DP subject and an compound form with an unaccusative verb. In this case, the DP subject is postverbal \Next.

\exg. 7 On {\th}aam fare wurdon adr[u]ncene {\th}{\ae}s cynges twegen sunan Willelm 7 Ricard\\
and on that journey were drowned the king's two sons William and Richard\\
`and on that journey the king's two sons William and Richard drowned' \hfill(ChronE 40)


Constructions in which the non-finite verb is an infinitive always have the subject in front of the non-finite verb \Next. This is the same tendency we observed for OF.

\ex.
\ag. {\th}a nolde basilla . brydguman geceosan... \\
then not-would Basilla . bridegroom choose...\\
`the Basilla would not choose a bridegroom...' \hfill
\bg. 7 sceall beon se l{\ae}sta d{\ae}l nyhst {\th}{\ae}m tune {\dh}e se deada man on li{\dh}  \\
and shall be the least part next to-the town the the dead man in lies\\
`and the least part shall be next to the town in which the dead man lies' \hfill (Or 17)






\subsection{Summing up}\label{sum}
We see that pronominal subjects always follow the finite verb in both OE and OF. As for DPs, we have seen that heaviness plays an important role in subject placement. If the subject is heavy, e.g. is modified, it is most likely to appear in final position of the clause. If we disregard the heavy subjects, we can observe the following

{\setlength{\baselineskip}{0.7\baselineskip}
\begin{itemize}
  \item the subject precedes the direct object
  \item the subject can both precede and follow the non-finite verb
  \item the subject follows certain adverbials and precedes others.
\end{itemize}
\par}


In section \ref{syntax} we will seek a model that can account for these data.



\section{Syntax}\label{syntax}

The position of subjects has been discussed for both OE and OF. A strong tradition for OE suggests that there are two subject positions in OE: A higher position for pronouns and a lower for DPs \citep{Pintzuk-93, Pintzuk-99, Pintz-Haeb}. \citet{Haeberli-2000, Haeberli-2002} identifies the higher subject position as SpecAgrP; the lower as SpecTP. In clauses that are not V-final or V-late, the finite verb will normally move to Agr$^{\textordmasculine}$. This implies that a pronominal subject will be preverbal unless the finite verb moves to the C-domain. A DP subject, on the other hand, will be postverbal in clauses that contain a finite verb in a high position. Occurrences of preverbal DP subject are analyzed as instances of topicalization, and the DP subject occupies SpecCP, but the verb has not moved into the C-domain.\footnote{Note that this is not the only analysis in the literature. See \citet{Walden-thesis, Walkden} for an approach where the verb obligatorily moves to the left periphery. However, Walkden does not discuss subject positions, so we do not consider his analysis in this presentation.} According to the tradition following \citet{Pintzuk-93}, the finite verb only moves to C$^{\textordmasculine}$ in \emph{wh}-clauses, verb-initial clauses, and following certain adverbs, such as \emph{{\th}a} 'then' \Next. S$_{P}$ means pronominal subject; $_{DP}$ nominal subject.

\exi. [CP topic [C{\textordmasculine} [AgrP S$_{P}$ [Agr{\textordmasculine} V $_{fin}$ [TP S$_{DP}$ [T{\textordmasculine} \strikeout{V $_{fin}$}...]]]]]]

The derivation of OE is not straightforward, as it is common to presume that the language has a right-branching VP (see \emph{inter ali} \citet{Pintzuk-93} and subsequent literature). It is possible to use a Kaynian approach \citep{Kayne-anti} and propose that the cases of OV in OE are derived by different movement operations, and that the whole language structure is left-branching. In either case, we must assume that the subject is merged in vP and that it moves to its surface position.

For OF, \citet{Vance-97} has made similar observations to the ones presented in this paper. She suggestes that the pronominal subject cliticizes on the finite verb, which moves to C$^{\textordmasculine}$. The DP subject may either occupy SpecTP or SpecVP. Note that in Vance's model, the finite verb only moves to C$^{\textordmasculine}$ when an element other than the subject precedes it. Vance's analysis for pronominal subjects is presented in \Next; and the analysis for DP subjects in \NNext. In addition, subjects may appear under SpecAgrP in non-inverted clauses.

\exi. [CP XP [C{\textordmasculine} V $_{fin}$ + S$_{P}$ [TP \strikeout{S$_{P}$} [T{\textordmasculine} \strikeout{V $_{fin}$} [VP \strikeout{S$_{P}$} [V{\textordmasculine} \strikeout{V $_{fin}$} ]]]]]]

\exi. [CP XP [C{\textordmasculine} V $_{fin}$ [TP S$_{DP}$ [T{\textordmasculine} \strikeout{V $_{fin}$} [VP S$_{DP}$ [V{\textordmasculine} \strikeout{V $_{fin}$} ]]]]]]


 We see that the models have identical points. First, we can conclude that both OE and OF pattern with languages such as Norwegian and German in that pronominal subjects and DP subjects appear in different positions, cf \ref{tysk}. The pronoun sits higher than the DP subject. In what follows, we will focus on the DP subject.

 


\subsection{The DP subject in the vP}
The fact that the postverbal subject may occur after the non-finite verb is somewhat troublesome. Analyses presuming a left-branching structure \`{a} la \citet{Kayne-anti}, will merge the subject in SpecvP, the highest specifier in the vP (see \citet{Kratzer}). The verb will be merged in V$^{\textordmasculine}$ and then move to v$^{\textordmasculine}$. The auxiliary will be merged in some designated head in the IP-field (presumably Aux$^{\textordmasculine}$). This gives us the outline of the vP as presented in \ref{vP}.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\Tree{ & \K{vP}\B{dl} \B{dr} \\
 \K{\emph{subject}}&& \K{v'}\B{dl} \B{dr}\\
&\K{v\textordmasculine} && \VP&  \\
&\T{verb}&\K{\emph{object}}&&\Vbar\\
&&&\Vzero &&\K{\emph{object}}\\
&&&\T{\strikeout{verb}}\Linkk[-->] {1.1} {-2,-2}&&\\
}
\caption{vP and VP}\label{vP}
\end{center}
\end{figure}



In the case of unaccusative verbs and passive constructions, the subject is merged in object position, in other words in SpecVP. If we hypothesize that the verb must always move to v$^{\textordmasculine}$, we immediately see the reason for postverbal DP subjects in unaccusative structures (see also \citet[351]{radford}). The structure is presented in figure \ref{vP-uakk}.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\Tree{ & \K{vP}\B{dl} \B{dr} \\
 && \K{v'}\B{dl} \B{dr}\\
&\K{v\textordmasculine} && \VP&  \\
&\T{verb}&\B{d}&&\Vbar\\
&&\K{\emph{subject}}&\Vzero &&\\
&&&\T{\strikeout{verb}}\Linkk[-->] {1.1} {-2,-2}&&\\
}
\caption{vP and VP with unaccusative verbs and in passive constructions}\label{vP-uakk}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

In OE, there is no distinct pattern as to the position of the DP subject with respect to the participle in passive constructions. In the case of OF, we see that with unaccusative verbs and passive constructions, the subject normally remains  in the position in which it has been merged. We do, however, have one example where the subject of an unaccusative verb precedes the non-finite verb. In addition, with six out of the eight transitive verbs, the participle precedes the DP subject. As we see in \ref{vP}, this is not expected, as the subject is merged to the left of v$^{\textordmasculine}$. It follows from this that in both OE and OF, the passive subject must have moved after it has been merged.

Our model is in other word not able to account for the data found in our corpus. On the one hand, we have made the assumption that the DP subject has not evacuated the vP. On the other hand, we see that the word order participle--DP subject is not possible within a standard model of the vP.

In order to solve this problem, we will use insights from \citet{Poletto-phases, Poletto-book-prop} who has investigated similar constructions in Old Italian. She proposes that in Old Italian, there is a left periphery in the vP, which behaves much in the same way as the higher left periphery. In other words: If there is obligatory verb movement to the higher left periphery, then there is obligatory verb movement to the lower left periphery. In addition, there are specifier positions in the lower left periphery that may host different phrases.

{\setlength{\baselineskip}{0.7\baselineskip}
\exg. i nimici avessero gi{\`{a}} \underline{il} \underline{passo} pigliato \\
the enemies had already the pace taken\\
``The enemies had already taken the pace.'' \begin{flushright}(Bono Giamboni, \emph{Orosio}, p 88, r. 15, cit. \citet{Poletto-phases})\end{flushright}
\par}

Similar constructions may be found in OF, as pointed out by \citet{Salvesen-RM} \Next.

\exg.Uns m{\'{e}}s le va tantost la royne conter \\
a messenger it goes immediately the queen tell\\
``A messenger will immediately tell it to the queen.'' \begin{flushright}(XIII, Berthe-pi, 3377)\end{flushright}\label{royne conter}

If there is an additional left periphery in the vP, we must assume at least one specifier position and one head to the left of vP, but not as high as the IP field. For lack of a better denomination, we will call this projection YP. The structure is presented in figure \ref{lowleft}. Poletto's analysis implies obligatory movement of the finite verb to Y$^{\textordmasculine}$, and then possible A' movement to SpecYP.



\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\Tree{
& \K{YP}\B{dl} \B{dr} \\
&& \K{Y'}\B{dl} \B{dr}\\
&\K{Y\textordmasculine} && \K{vP}\B{dl} \B{dr} \\
&\T{verb}&\K{\emph{subject}}&& \K{v'}\B{dl} \B{dr}\\
&&&\K{v\textordmasculine} && \VP&  \\
&&&\T{verb}\Linkk[-->] {1.1} {-2,-2}&\K{\emph{object}}&&\Vbar\\
&&&&&\Vzero &&\K{\emph{object}}\\
&&&&&\T{\strikeout{verb}}\Linkk[-->] {1.1} {-2,-2}&&\\
}
\caption{The left periphery of the vP}\label{lowleft}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

If we adopt Poletto's analysis, we see how transitive constructions in OF may have the DP subject after the non-finite verb: The non-finite verb has moved to Y$^{\textordmasculine}$, and the subject remains in SpecvP. Consequently, in the one example where the DP subject precedes the non-finite verb, the subject has moved by A'-movement to SpecYP. We have already seen that this kind of A'-movement exists independently in OF (see also \citet{Myking}).

The same model works well for the OE data, especially for the cases where a passive subject precedes the non-finite verb: We will assume that the subject has moved past the participle to SpecYP (as SpecvP is an A-position, this is not a possible landing site). 

\citet{Poletto-book-prop} suggests that the lower left periphery has several A' landing sites, just as the exploded CP field. She quotes several examples where the non-finite verb is preceded by two complements or adverbs . Interestingly, we find a similar example in the OE data. In \Next, both the subject \emph{seo ceaster} `the city' and the predicative \emph{Antiochia} precede the participle \emph{geciged} `called'. We take it that the subject and the predicative realize different specifier positions in the lower left periphery. In other words, there isn't only a YP, but presumeably also a ZP.

\exg. {\ae}fter {\th}{\ae}s cyninges naman w{\ae}s seo ceaster Antiochia geciged\\
	after the king's name was the city Antiochia called\\
	`after this king's name the city was called Antioch' \hfill (ApT 2)

To sum up: We have made the claim that the postverbal DP subject never leaves the vP in OF or OE. The implication of this analysis is that Case checking is done by Agree, and not by Move. 


\section{Information structure}\label{infostr}

We have claimed that postverbal subjects in verbal complexes with non-finite verbs never leave the vP, neither in OE nor in OF, and we have also seen that there is variability with respect to the position of the DP-subject: It can precede or follow the participle. In order to solve this problem, we propose that the vP may contain a `low left periphery'. The question is what motivates the low left periphery projection(s), and the movement or lack of movement of the subject. Our proposal is that information-structural factors, or weight factors, or both, come into play, and that there is a difference between OE and OF in this respect. In OE, both factors apply, whereas in OF, it is mostly weight that is relevant.

The general presupposition is that \textsc{given} and \textsc{light} elements resist final position, whereas \textsc{new} and \textsc{heavy} elements tend to occur in a low position (principle of end focus and end weight, e.g. \citet{Firbas, Quirk}). So if the subject is \textsc{given}, it has to move up to SpecYP to check information-structural features there, in the same way that subjects move to SpecCP to check information-structural features. If the subject is \textsc{new} or \textsc{heavy}, it stays in the lowest projection.

A comparison of OE and OF shows that this tendency is stronger for OE than for OF. In OE, the lowest subject is \textsc{new} or \textsc{heavy} or both, except in rare cases where other factors to do with sentence organization intervene. DP subjects that precede the participle or infinitive usually convey \textsc{given} information. In OF, a \textsc{given} or \textsc{inferable} subject can occur in the lowest position if it is \textsc{heavy}. Let us consider some examples from OE first. In \Next, the \textsc{given} subject \emph{seo ceaster} `the city' precedes the participle, whereas in \NNext, the \textsc{new} subject \emph{sum iung man} `a young man' follows the participle. These clauses thus adhere to the common pattern.


\exg. {\ae}fter {\th}{\ae}s cyninges naman w{\ae}s seo ceaster Antiochia geciged\\
	after the king's name was the city Antiochia called\\
	`after this king's name the city was called Antioch' \hfill (ApT 2)

\exg. {\dh}a w{\ae}s Apollonius gehaten sum iung man\\
	then was Apollonius called a young man\\
	`then there was a young man called Apollonius' \hfill (ApT 4)

Example \Next shows a \textsc{given} subject in post-participle position, but it is a coordinated and \textsc{heavy} subject, hence the position.

\exg. {\th}a wurdon gefullode . philippus . and claudia . and heora twegen suna . mid so{\dh}um 	geleafan\\
	then were filled . Philip . and Clauda . and their two sons . with true faith\\
	`then Philip, Claudia, and their two sons were filled with true faith' \hfill	({\AE}LS 40)

In \Next, a \textsc{new} subject, \emph{an wyrt} `a herb' precedes the participle, which is unexpected. However, the verb phrase constitutes a `frame' around the information provided by the two adverbials and the subject.

\exg. Ac Alexandre wear{\dh} on {\dh}{\ae}re ilcan niht an swefne an wyrt o{\dh}ewed \\
	But Alexander.DAT was in the same night in sleep a herb shown\\
	`But in the same night a herb was shown to Alexander in a dream' \hfill (Or 73)

Other configurations are less desirable, for example \emph{Alexandre wear{\dh} o{\dh}ewed on {\dh}{\ae}re ilcan niht an swefne an wyrt}, which puts the subject at some distance from the lexical verb, or \emph{Alexandre wear{\dh} on {\dh}{\ae}re ilcan niht o{\dh}ewed an swefne an wyrt}, which separates the two related adverbial prepositional phrases. A possible constituent order would be \emph{Alexandre wear{\dh} on {\dh}{\ae}re ilcan niht an swefne o{\dh}ewed an wyrt}, which would place the \textsc{new} subject last, but it would also mean that the subject would be placed outside the frame of the verb phrase, in which the author of the original version has safely ensconced it, together with the adverbials. There is thus a cluster of non-verbal elements in the sentence brace.

In OF, the picture is somewhat less orderly than in OE, which is not unexpected, considering that OF is less susceptible to the workings of information structure than is OE. As regards DP subjects that occur in front of the participle or infinitive, they are invariably \textsc{given} or \textsc{inferable}. The DP subjects that occur after the participle or infinitive are usually \textsc{new}, as \emph{maint chevalier} `many knights' in \Next, or \textsc{new} and \textsc{heavy}, as \emph{uns chevalier a qui ge voudroie resembler} à knight whom I would like to resemble' in \NNext, but weight also seems to play an independent role, as in \ref{Yrlande}, repeated here as \ref{roine}, where the subject, la \emph{ro{\"{i}}ne d'Irlande} `the queen of Ireland' is \textsc{given} and \textsc{heavy}.

\exg. car cel jor l' orent veu maint chevalier a l' assemblee\\
for that day him had seen many knights at the assembly\\
`for that day many knights had seen him at the assembly' 

\exg. si l' a veincu uns chevaliers a qui ge  voudroie resembler\\
SI him has defeated a knight to whom I would resemble\\
`he was defeated by a knight whom I would like to resemble'


\exg. Et por la bont{\'{e}} de li l' a \c{c}a envoi{\'{e}} la ro\"{i}ne d' Yrlande\\
and for the goodness of her her has there sent the queen of Ireland\\
`And because of her goodness, the queen of Ireland has sent him/her there' \hfill(Tr 304)\label{roine}

However, OF also has instances of seemingly free variation. Consider \Next and \NNext.

\exg. Et por la petitesce de li, et por ce que nens estoit, l' avoit ses peres chaci{\'{e}} d' entor li\\
and for the smallness of him and for that what dwarf was him had his father chased from around him\\
`Because of his small size and because he was a dwarf, his father had chased him away.'

\exg. et por la proesce de li l' avoit retenu li Morholz en sa compaignie\\
and for the courage of him him had kept the Morholt in his company\\
`and Morholt had kept him in his company because of his courage. \hfill(Tr 287)


In \LLast, the \textsc{given} subject is \emph{ses peres} `his father', and it precedes the participle \emph{chaci{\'{e}}}`chased', whereas in \Last, the \textsc{given} subject \emph{li Morholz} follows the participle \emph{retenu} `kept'. These clauses are otherwise very similar in content and structure. It seems that in in cases like this, neither the syntactic model nor the information structure model is able to account for the constituent order. We may thus have to accept that in the early stages of these languages, in which word order was freer than it is today, such free variation will occasionally occur.




\section{Conclusion} \label{conclusion}

Whereas our previous study of preverbal subjects showed that there is a considerable difference between OE and OF, the syntax of postverbal subjects is similar in the two languages. We have seen that in both languages, the pronominal subject is adjacent to the finite verb. As for postverbal DP subjects, we have shown that they do not move out of the vP and that they check their case by Agree, not Move. We have proposed an identical model of the vP for both languages, in which there is a `lower left periphery' to which elements may scramble in the vP.

When it comes to information structure, both languages are sensitive to weight. A heavy subject will more easily sit low in the structure than a light one. However, when it comes to the information value of OE and OF, a different pattern arises: Whereas information value seems to play a limited role in OF, it is an important factor in the word ordering of OE. A DP subject that precedes a non-finite form is either \textsc{given} or \textsc{inferable}, whereas a DP subject that follows the non-finite form is normally \textsc{new} or \textsc{new} in combination with \textsc{heavy}. In OF, DP subjects that precede the non-finite verbs are \textsc{given}, but a \textsc{given} element may occur after the non-finite form if it is also \textsc{heavy}.

There is, in other words, a fundamental difference between OE and OF when it comes to the role of information structure in the ordering of elements. Although we may argue that the underlying syntactic model is the same, OE exploits the possibilities that lie in the structure if information structure dictates it. OF, on the other hand, exploits the syntactic positions without being unduly restricted by information structure. When we examined preverbal subjects in OE and OF, we suggested that the preverbal word order in OE was essentially driven by information structure, whereas it was driven by syntax in OF. We see that this fundamental difference is observed also when we consider postverbal subjects.

{\setlength{\baselineskip}{0.5\baselineskip}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\bibliography{SAL}
\par}

\end{document}
