Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang

On the post-finite misagreement phenomenon 133
the 31 such cases identified in this text, all showed a plural verb form, as exemplified
in (15):
(15) a. En cele an furent deux Romeins occys en Westchepe. Chron. Lond. 1, 3
‘In this year two Romans were killed in Westcheap.’
b. A cele houre furent les Escoces entrez en Stannowe Park.
Chron. Lond. 60, 3
‘At this time the Scots had entered Stanhope Park.’
It therefore seems implausible to suppose that the PFM phenomenon can be
attributed to contact with French.
Let us now move on to considering whether PFM should be seen as an early
appearance of a vernacular trait, namely was for were. In this connection, Nevalainen
(2006) has raised the question whether there was an association between was for were
and the Northern Subject Rule. In the Northern Subject Rule, a singular -s inflection
is in most contexts used with a plural subject (cf. Ihalainen 1994). It is true that our
data precede the time when London forms displayed any known Northern influence
(cf. Schendl 1994), but nevertheless the increase in PFM in the later period we studied
indicates that we are dealing with an innovation, and vernacular trends, particularly
under the influence of Northern speakers, might have been heading in the direction
of favouring was for were. The problem here is the positional asymmetry overwhelmingly
attested in our data. Vernacular Early Modern English that makes widespread
use of non-standard forms – for example, George Fox’s Journal (Penney 1911) – shows
frequent use of was for were with plural subjects in pre-finite position too:
(16) As wee was goinge alongst ye streets. Fox, Journal (1694)
It is difficult to see why London chronicle writers, if they were content to use putative
vernacular verbal agreement forms, should have so carefully avoided them in
pre-finite subject contexts. Accordingly, we do not believe that a sociolinguistic
account couched simply in terms of morphological variation can be sustained.
A further possibility is that the PFM phenomenon was a language processing
matter: it might be supposed that, while planning the sentence, the number feature
on the subject has not yet been determined at the point where the finite auxiliary
is produced. This is not to our knowledge a notion that has any empirical support
from psycholinguistic research, but there may be some merit in considering a processing
account, especially since the commonest use of was for were in the pre-1451
data is in extraposed position, where the subject stood furthest from the finite verb,
hence, in online terms, was produced appreciably later than the finite verb was.
However, this runs into the problem that it does not explain why our data show no
effect of distance from the finite verb after 1450. Since part of the phenomenon to
be explained is the sharp increase in PFM in the later 15th century in other contexts,
but not in extraposition, a processing account does not seem particularly helpful.