Poetics (1976), l-22.

0 North-Holland Publishing Company

LITERARY TRANSFORMATIONS AND POETIC WORD ORDER

W.K. Wimsatt. Jr. In memoriam

GEORGE L. DILLON

1. THE NOTION OF LITERARY SYNTAX

The general notion of a figure or scheme is defined by Quintilian after extensive

discussion as ‘that which is poetically or rhetorically altered from the simple and
obvious method of expression’; in the same passage, he calls it a ‘rational change’
(specie cum ratione mututio).’ Here is a classic statement of the view that the lan-
guages of ordinary usage and of ‘poetry and rhetoric’ are different, and that the
differences can be described - the schemes classify the types of departure from or-
dinary usage. The ‘changes’ must work in a fashion parallel to the ordinary pro-
cesses of the language, however, for if they go too far, they become vices. Indeed, if
one were at liberty to change the language arbitrarily by ‘poetic license’, it would
cease to be a language describable by rules: in Quintilian’s terms, the changes would
not be ‘rational’.
Quintilian’s definition is intended to cover fropes (words used in other than their
normal ‘senses: metaphor, synecdoche, allegory, etc.) and constructions which are
unusual in their grammatical structure. It is this latter kind of ‘unusualness’ that I
will be concerned with here - the former kind has received much more attention
from grammarians working in the general framework of generative grammar
(Bloomfield 1963; Weinreich 1966; Thomas 1968, among others). The various
kinds of unusual syntax described in the rhetorical treatises are strikingly like the
products of optional transformations such as Gapping, Topicalization, Left-Disloca-
tion, Conjunction Reduction, Node-Raising, Verb-Final, and Scrambling described
by Ross (1967,197O) and others and currently under intensive study? Specifically,

1 This and subsequent citations of Quintilian from the Loeb edition, edited by H.E. Butler
(1959). Here 1X.1.13. Citations of Ad Herennium (Ad H.) also from Loeb edition, edited by
Harry Caplan (1954).
’ One of these, Scrambling (for Latin), Ross suggests relegating to a special ‘stylistic com-
ponent’ of the grammar rather than the normal transformational component (1967: section
3.1.2). In this he seems to be following Chomsky, who would also relegate Topicaliiation to
such a component (1965: 127-127,221-222). In Syntacfic structures, Chomsky suggests that
the products of Node-Raising should possibly be characterized as semi-grammatical (1957: 35,
note 2). None of this affects my argument in the least, since Ross has formulated the processes

1
2 C.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order

there are two classes of grammatical schemes that delete and permute major con-
stituents, those described by Puttenham as working ‘by defect’ (Quintilian: detrac-
tio) - primarily the zeugma family - and those working ‘by disorder’ - hyper-
baton, anastrophe, hysterologia, cacosyntheton, and hysteron-proteron. Rubel
(1941) and Joseph (1947) have shown that the schemes catalogued by Puttenham
(among others) are quite characteristic of the poetic languages of Spenser and
Shakespeare. By analysing these schemes as transformations and comparing them
to usual optional transformations of English, we can describe precisely what is
‘poetical’ in the syntax of Spenser and Shakespeare (and those who imitated them)
and how it is related to ‘usual English’ of the Renaissance. Further, this analysis
establishes the non-self-evident point that the re-orderings and deletions described
by the rhetoricians are constrained and systematic in their operation. It is not the
case that even Spenserian word order is ‘free’, or that ‘poetic license’ enables one
to do anything he wants in poetry. That is, a transformational model of grammati-
cal schemes can explain how the literary language works.
(Note: I will draw on works in the rhetorical tradition from Quintilian and Ad
Herennium through Puttenham (1589), making use of the valuable works by Ian-
ham (1968), Rubel (1941), and Joseph (1947) to thread the maze of terminology.
I have adopted the policy of ‘second-guessing’ individual rhetoricians in a few cases,
either because their descriptions are imprecise or conflict with another authority,
but I have done so in favor of the examples: when the examples do not examplify,
I have substituted others that do. I have limited the present analysis to schemes
which re-order and delete major constituents (N, V, ADJ).)

2. ZEUGMA SCHEMES

Zeugma schemes are classified as schemes of defect or ‘taking away’ in the rheto-
rics along with ellipsis (omission of minor words such as the that complementizer3).
Zeugmas are reductions of conjoined sentences. I will describe them in transforma-
tional rather than Interpretive terms as derived by deletion and Conjunction Reduc-
tion, referring to the constituent that is not deleted (i.e., that ‘deletes the others’)
as the Controller. I assume some familiarity with the transformations mentioned,

as transformations and shown that they obey certain constraints on the operations of trans-
formations. Jacobs and Rosenbaum (1971) discuss WHCleft, Extraposition, even Relative
Clause Reduction as ‘stylistic’, virtually identifying ‘optional’ and stylistic transformations.
There is considerable uncertainty in transformational grammar on what is to be classified as
‘stylistic’, and on this modern grammarians might learn a few tricks from the rhetoricians,
though few are really consistent about it either, the outstanding exception being Quintilian.
3 See George Puttenham, 77~ arte of English poesie (1589: 136), Hereafter ‘Putt’. I have
silently modernized spelling and set off the examples as is customary in linguistic studies today.
Spelling is also modernized in the citations of Spenser and Shakespeare.
 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order 3

but have included an appendix on them. As is customary, ‘0’ refers to ‘object’ in

the sense of complement to the verb (i.e., direct, indirect, and other oblique ob-
jects) unless otherwise specified.
The following three types of zeugmas are described by the rhetoricians (though
the division into those derived by Conjunction Reduction and those by Gapping is
my own and is descriptive only - ‘left-gapping’ will be treated below as a case of
Conjunction Reduction):

I. Controller in final clause (hypozeugma):

A. Conjunction reduction:
(1) out morbo out vetuslate formae dignitas deflorescit (Ad H. IV.21.38; adjunciio, verbum
postremum).
(2) Hours, days, weeks, months, and years do pass away (Sherry, in: Lanham 1968: 58).
(3) Fellows and ftiends and kin forsook me quite (Putt. 136).
B. ‘Left-gapping’:
(4) aui pudor . . . a turpitudine our metus a periculo aut ratio a furore revocaverit (Quin.
1X.3.62; ‘epezeugmenon’).
(5) Either the truth or talk nothing at all (Putt. 137).
(6) Our blood to us, this io our blood is born (Shak. AW. I.iii.137).
(7) As you on him, Demerrius dote on you (Shak. MND. I.i.225).
(8) For life must life, and blood musr blood repay (Seen. FQ. I.ix.43).
(9) They do thy lineage, and thy lordly brood,
They do thy sire, lamenting sore for thee,
They do thy love, forlorn in women’s thralldom, see (FQ. V.vii.21).
(10) Sleep-after toil, port after stormy seas,
Ease after war, death after life does greatly please (FQ. I.ix.40).

II. Controller in initial clause @rozeugrna):

A. Conjunction reduction:
(11) Deflorescir formae dignitas out morbo out vet&ale (Ad H. IV.27.38; adjunctio,
verbum primum).
B. ‘RightCapping’:
(12) Vicir pudorem libido, rimorem audacia, rationem amentia (Quin. 1X.3.62; epezeug-
menon. praepositio verba).
(13) Her beauty piercst mine eye, her speech mine woeful heart (Putt. 37).
(14) Bur passion lends them power, rime means, to meet (Shak. RJ. IIProl.13).
(1.5) How Tarquin wronged me, I Collatine (Shak. R of Lu. 819).

III. Controller in middle clause (mezozeugma):

(16) Formae dignitas aui morbo deflorescir aul veiustate (Ad H. IV.27.38; conjunctio).

For Latin, the first two zeugma-types seem cases of normal re-orderings and dele-
tions. If following Joan Maling (1972) we assume Gapping works only to the right,
Quintilian’s first example reflects the ‘Node-Raising’ option of Conjunction Reduc-
4 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order

tion with an SOV input

(4)

autv’\

Np/s\ NPHSIVP
/W\v
Y ‘v
,p? ,pY

P ;
pudor u turpitudine revocaverit metus a revocaven’t

CR(N-R option)

Y
aut \

NP~s‘NP NPAS\VP

I /“\
pudor a turpitudine metus a periculo revocaverit

This transformation, while it exists for English (see below), will not create the ef-
fect of gapping to the left, since the V is not a final constituent - hence hypo-
zeugma producing ‘left-gapping’ in English is not possible with the usual transfor-
mations and the usual word order. If the ‘left-gapping’ zeugma and the others are
normal deletions for Latin, however, there should not be anything particularly
‘unusual’ about them, and indeed Quintilian denies that they are schemes in Latin
because they are so common (vulgaria, 1X.3.64). It would be in his spirit, however,
to conclude that ‘left-gapping’ is a ‘literary’ scheme in English. It would be a mis-
take, though, to postulate a ‘Hypozeugma transformation’ for English, ‘for it can be
explained as the outcome of a ‘literary’ re-ordering transformation (see following
section).
The remaining case is the mezozeugma type:

(17) Who doth sometimes counsel take, and sometimes tea (Pope, R of I,. 111.7-8).
(18) Faire maids’heauty(alack) with years it wears away,
And with weatherandsickness, and sorrow as they say (Putt. 37; the Left-Dislocation is
irrelevant here).
(19) Formae dignitas aut morbo deflorescit aut vetustate (= 16).

Assuming with Stockwell et al. (1972) that all conjunction derives from sentential
conjunction, these would be derived by Gapping and Conjunction Reduction (see
Appendix E). Alternatively, these might be derived by Conjunction Reduction and
 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order 5

then ‘Poetical-Conjunct Movement’ which would differ from the suggested rule of
Conjunct Movement in English (the existence of which is doubtful). This seems un-
necessarily wasteful, given the existence of Gapping. In short, given the derivation
in appendix E, no special schematic transformation need be postulated here.
The distinction drawn by Quintilian between ‘ordinary’ optional deletions and
true schemes appears in a different form in Puttenham in his discussion of hype-
.zezCxis,where he makes it clear that some deletions (or in this case pronominaliza-
tions) are normal - then non-deletion is ‘schematic’:

Unto the king she went, and to the king she said,
Mine own liege Lord, behold thy poor handmaid.

Here [went to the king] and [said to the king] be but one clause iterated with
words of sundry supply. Or as in these verses following:

My lady gave, my lady wist not what,

Giving me leave to be her sovereign:
For by such gift my lady hath done that,
Which whilst she lives she may not call again.

Here [my Zadygave] and [my lady wist] be supplied with iteration “by virtue of
this figure” (Putt. 139). Presumably Puttenham wants the second my lady to be
pronominalized, as it is in the last line. Putter&am does seem to regard gapped sen-
tences right or left and sentences with split conjuncts as sufficiently out of the or-
dinary as to qualify them as schematic.

3. SCHEMES OF DISORDER (RE-ORDERING Ts)

Latin is a verb-final language, Quintilian informs us, and any variation from that
is an hyperbaton and ‘schematic’ (1X.4.23). The ordering principles of the modern
vernaculars, however, are quite different, and the Renaissance rhetoricians show
considerable originality in finding native examples of what they understood their
classical sources to be describing. There is great variation in terminology in this
area: Rubel uses hysteron-proteron for the generic term, Joseph uses anastrophe,
apparently following Angel Day.4 But as Quintilian himself said in a slightly dif-
ferent connection, it does not matter what you call them - what matters is what
they do (IX.i.7-8).

3.1 Topicalization and left-dislocation

Joseph reports that Angel Day cites the following as a type of anastrophe:

4 For Quintilian, anastrophe is a minor kind of hyperbaton involving the switching of two
words (a word-level metathesis called in Puttenham ‘hippelage or the changing’).
6 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order

“Faults, no man liveth without

when order requireth
No man liveth without faults” (Joseph 1947: 294).

This is the familar Topicalization transformation (or ‘Y[iddish] Movement’) 2

evidently it is more native than is sometimes thought! It is quite common in Shake-
speare :

(20) This thing of darkness

Iacknowledge mine (Temp. V.i.215-216).
(21) of comfort no man speak (Ric. II. III.ii.144).

and very common in Spenser :

(22) But subtle Archimage, when hisguests

He saw divided into double parts (FQ. I.ii.9).
(23) For her he hated as the hissing snake (same stanza).
(24) That path they take (I.i.9).

Topicalization is thought to Chomsky-adjoin an NP or PP to the left of the highest

sentence embedding it, thus introducing a marked constituent break between it and
the rest of the sentence:

no man liveth without faults

s
NP---
NPYS\VP
v/ ‘PP

I’\ I P
faults no man liveth without

In addition to placing the moved constituent in prominence, it has interesting

metrical effects. When a pronoun is moved, it retains its case-marking:

Him I like, but her I don ‘t like.

Topicalization of an oblique-case pronoun (often relative) is a favorite device of

Spenser and Milton and not uncommon in Shakespeare:
 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformationsand poetic word order I

(25) Whom suddenly he wakes with fearful fright (Spen. FQ. 15.4).
(26) Her all in white he c&d (FQ. I.i.45).
(27) Her soon he overtook, and bad to stay (FQ. I.ii.20).
(28) There is virtue in that Falstaft him keep xith, the rest banish (Shak. I Hen. IV. II.iv.
424).
(29) WhomZserve above is my master (A W. II.iii.26).
(30) Your party in converse, him you would sound,
He closes with you (Ham. II.i.42).

A second, closely related transformation is ‘Left-Dislocation’ which works as does

Topicalization, but leaves a pronominal copy behind:

(3 1) My life’s foul deed, my life’s fair end shallfree it (Shak. R. of Lu. 1208).
(32) That thing you speak of Z took it for a man (Lear IV.vI.77).
(33) Rut if Z thrive, the gain of my attempt
The least of you shall share his part thereof (Ric. ZZZ. V.Iii.267).’

Clearly no special ‘schematic’ transformations are required to describe these lines.

3.2 Adjective movements

Cucosyntheton is the term used by Puttenham for a construction he does not like,
ADJ following N modified: “Another of your intolerable vices is the ill disposition
or placing of your words in a clause or sentence: as when you will place your ad-
jective after your substantive, thus Maid fair, widow rich, priest holy and such like,
which though the Latins did admit, yet our English did not, as one that said ridicu-
lously

In my years lusty, many a deed doughty did I” (Putt. 212).

The peculiar perspective of the Renaissance Humanist is evident here in two ways:
he gives no consideration to French, the probable model for this construction, and
he does not recognise that the rule does not seem to have been obligatory in earlier
English, in fact, rather the other way around for adjectives of French and Latin
origin (see Traugott 1972: 158; also Abbott, Q 419 for many examples from Shake-
speare). This situation would be noted in generative grammar either by making ad-
jective-preposing optional, or marking Latinate and learned French words as excep-
tions to the rule. For Puttenham, however, non-application of ADJ-preposing is a
‘scheme’.
On the other hand, Puttenham also classifies as a vice the application of ADJ-
preposing out of a complex adjectival. Under the heading of hysteron-proteron

5 Note here that ‘Left-Dislocation’ does not move the NP ail the way to the front - hence it
is not strictly a ‘root’ or ‘post-cyclic’ operation here (see Emonds 1970: 18-19). Ross, how-
ever, has some doubts about restricting this T to last or post-cyclic operation (1967: 6.2.1).
Similar remarks apply for (28).
8 G.L. DillonfLiterary transformations and poetic word order

(‘the cart before the horse’) he says:

it may be done, either by a single word or by a clause of speech: by a single word thus:

And if I not perform, God let me never thrive.

For perform not: and this vice is something tolerable enough, but if the word carry any notable
sense, it is a vice not tolerable [note the postnominal ADJ - CLD] , as he that said praising a
woman for her red lips, thus:

A coral lip of hue

Which is no good speech, because either he should have said no more but a coral lip, which had
been enough to declare the redness, or else he should have said, a lip of coral hue, and not II
coral lip of hue. Now if the disorder be in a whole clause which carrieth more sentence than a
word, it is then worst of all (Putt. 213).

The construction occurs frequently in Shakespeare:

Nor scar that whiter skin of hers than snow (0th. V.ii.4).
Bring me a constant woman to her husband (Hen. VIII. III.i.134).

(See Abbott, 8 419a for further examples.) Puttenham’s remark is valuable in iden-
tifying this construction as distinctively ‘schematic’ by his time, since Traugott cites
examples of it from writings thought to reflect informal usage (1972: 159). Putten-
ham’s remarks indicate that by his time, ADJPreposing rules were much like those
for NE (or at least were to him), however frequently they may have been violated.
Franz (1939: 8 685) notes that non-preposing in Shakespearean poetry often has a
metrical motive and that learned authors employ it more than more down-to-earth
writers in prose.

3.3 SO V order
One aspect of Renaissance literary syntax not remarked on by Putter&ram is the
fairly common SOV order in dependent clauses, especially adverbials and relatives. I
cite representative examples from Shakespeare and Spenser (and Pope!):

(34) By Richard that dead is (1 Hen. IV. l.iii.146).

(35) Nor I nor any man that but man is (Ric. II. V.v.39).
(36) But chide rough winter that the flower hath killed (R. of Lu. 1255).
(37) Soon as that uncouth light upon them shone (Spen. FQ. I.i.15).
(38) Yet he her followed still with courage keen (FQ. III.iv.51).
(39) Did so spread abroad, that heaven’s right did hide (FQ. I.i.7).
(40) Who doth sometimes counsel take, and sometimes tea.6

6 Note that sometimes the AUX ‘goes along with’ the V, sometimes it remains behind and
do-support is triggered, as in this line. Spenser does each. See Appendix F.
 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order 9

(For other examples, see Rubel 1941: 36, 44, 64-65, 163, 182, 245, noted as
Hysteron-proteron.) The construction has strong native roots, for it was the normal
order in dependent clauses in OE (as in Modern German) - as with postnominal ad-
jectives, an element of ‘archaism’ may be involved. The evidence is fairly clear, how-
ever, that even by Chaucer’s time this order was obsolete for prose (and presumably
for ‘common’ usage).’ In an interesting comment on Tottel’s revisions of Surrey’s
Sonnets, Rubel notes that SOV orders seemed to be coming into literary for the
Elizabethans: “he [Tottel] occasionally shifts a perfectly simple line to produce
slight hysferon proteron, so popular with later poets:
(Surrey): That Cupid’s scourge did make me run
(Tottel): That Cupid’s scourge me caused to run” (Rubel 1941: 64-65).

We can reasonably conclude that SOV order was possible (or that reordering to
SOV was a scheme) in Renaissance literary language in dependent clauses. Actually,
Spenser uses it heavily outside of dependent clauses as well, though in this he seems
somewhat unusual.8 In the first canto of the Fairie Queen I have come across these
examples (and the list is not exhaustive):

(41) But the other half did women’s shape retain (14)
(42) The stroke down from her head unto her shoulder glaunst (17)
(43) He fair the knight saluted (30)
(44) Her swollen heart her speech seemed to bereave (52)

If we assume that the basic constituent order of English is SVO, we need a rule like
that suggested by Ross (and after him, Bach 197 1) for dependent clauses in German
(‘Verb-Final’ - see Appendix) which re-orders 0 and V. In Modern German the rule
is fairly simple, moving the AUX t V to the end of the clause (i.e., across all of the
Comp). Certain examples from Shakespeare and Spenser suggest that the re-ordening
rule necessary for their English is a variant of Verb-Final which moves either V or
AUX + V either to the end of the clause or just to the right of the first NP (the
direct object):

(45) And salt too little which may season give

To her foul-tainted flesh (M Ado 1V.i. 144).
(46) You are three men of sin whom Destiny
. . . the never-surfeited sea
Hath caused to belch up you (Temp. II.ii.53 - the final you is a copy of the relative
pronoun, apparently left because of the wide separation of whom from its original
place).

’ Walarlan Swieczkowski (1962) finds that while Piers Plowman shows 37% V-final order in
dependent clauses, the roughly contemporaneous prose sermons in Middle English sermons have
virtually none. A better indicator of ‘common’ usage would be the Paston Letters.
’ Though Swieczkowski notes a significant percentage (24%) of verb-final main clauses in
Piers Plowman (1962: 53). Hence Spenser’s use of this order in main clauses may be an archa-
ism .
10 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order

(47) Yet he her followed still with courage keen (FQ. III.iv.Sl)
(48) He piped grace, whilst they him doncst about (Mut. vii.46)

However, there are many cases in Spenser where ‘Verb-Final’ does seem to be
correct:

(49) The fiends do quake, when any him to them does name (FQ. III.iii.12)
(50) 7’he stroke down from her head unto her shoulder glaunst (= 42).

Apparently the rule should state that the V moves to the right over a variable which
must begin with NP.
On the other hand, (48) suggests that the movement should be of the NP rather
than the Verb, since a preposition is apparently stranded. It is impossible, however,
to move the entire complement by a transformation, since it is not a constituent.
And (48) is by no means unique :

(51) For fear lest &y should look their shows upon (Shak. MND. III.ii.385).
(52) For my good will is to k
And yours it is against (Temp. III. i. 31).

These examples of stranded prepositions are not decisive evidence against deriving
the sentences by Variable-Verb-Final, however, because some non-monosyllabic

9 Peacham notes this in combination with preposing of the PP:

“all Italy about I went
which is contrary to plain order that placeth that saying thus
I went about all Italy.
Now hope and fear between I stand
for
I stand now between hope and fear” (Fiiii verso).
He also notes what we might describe as a preposition stranded by ‘Right NP Drift’ (see Postal
1971: 203): “Hysterologia, when a preposition doth not serve to his casual word, but is joined
to a verb, as though it were compounded with it, thus,
I ran after with as much speed as I could, the thief that had undone me
Here the preposition after, is joined to the verb, I ran, which should be put next to the noun
thief thus

With as much speed as I could, I ran after the thief that had undone me
Another
He ran against with fury rage, the doors most strong,
here likewise the preposition against is joined to the verb, which according to the order of con-
struction, ought to have served to the noun, thus,
He ran with furious rage, against the doors most strong” (fol. iiii recta).
 G.L. DillonfLiterary transformations ond poetic word order 11

prepositions in ENE as in OE are often ‘post-positions’, especially in ‘poetry (see

Abbott 1970: 0 203; Franz 1939: 0 426)’ Compare (53), where Verb-Final is not
in question:

(53) That path they take, that beaten seemed most bare,
And like to lead the labyrinth about; (FQ. I.i.11).

Given possible NPP order, these examples are not counter-examples to Variable-
Verb-Final but further evidence for it.”
Now, given the availability of SOV order, we can largely account for the exam-
ples of ‘left-gapping’ of which Spenser is also fond. The ‘Node-Raising’ option of
Conjunction Reduction also applies in English to final constituents, giving us

(54) Mary must kill, and John must clean, the game.
Mary is now, and Joan will be, asleep.

If there is an SOV input, as in Latin, we get ‘left-gapping’:

life must life repay blood must blood rep&

lo Traugott (1972: 109) notes that pronominal objects tend to precede the V in OE
whether in main or dependent clauses and notes that this tendency continues in ME and into
ENE poetry (1972: 160-166). Possibly the clear case-marking on pronouns encouraged the use
of Verb-Final. Her example from I Hen. IV has been listed here (= 28) as a case of Topicaliza-
tion - since the sentence is imperative and lacks a subject, the only difference between the
analyses would be the strength of the intonation break between him (and rhe rest) and the
verbs.
Variable-Verb-Final may be involved in the derivation of the 18% of the sentences in Piers
Plowman which Swieczkowski lists as “verb-medial” (1962: 54ff.).
12 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order

with a sharp constituent break before the raised verb. This would apply only if the
V has been moved all the way to the end of the clause, thus predicting that such
things as

She curses on him, he thanks heaped on her.

She flowers to him, he kisses gave to her.

would not occur. I certainly have not come across them.

Thus what seems to be an independent and peculiar scheme of ‘left-gapping’ in
English turns out to be a normal consequence of SOV ordering. It seems to be the
literary or schematic ordering that is the source of the ‘left-gapping’ (i.e., it ‘feeds’
a normal transformation of English). One is free of course to say that the whole
thing is a Latinism, perhaps showing the influence of Latin rhetorical training, but
the order and transformations in question are both native and the results not terri-
bly obtrusive. The explanation presented here would predict that when SOV order
ceased to be used by poets, left-gapping should cease to occur. I have not been able
to investigate this in any detail.

3.4 OVS Order

The order OVS does occur, but much more rarely, in Spenser:

(55) Yet arms till that time did he never wield (FQ. I.i.1).
(56) On horseback used Trtamond to fight
And Priamond on foot had more delight,
But horse and foot knew Diamond to wield:
With curtax used Diamond to smite,
And Triamond to handle spear and shield
But spear and curtax both usd Priamond in field
(IV.ii.42 - the spelling of usd indicates that it is monosyllabic).

We might think of this order as produced by Subject/Aux inversion after Topicaliza-

tion has applied - note that sometimes Aux inverts, sometimes Tns + Verb, as in
Variable-Verb-Final. Similar examples from Shakespeare:

(57) But answer made it none (Ham. I.ii.216).

(58) That rudeness that hath appeared in me have I learned from my entertainment (TN.
I.v.201).

This order was much more common in ME: Swieczkowski finds that two thirds of
the sentences which have direct objects first have the order OVS in Piers Plowman
(p. 21) and 40% of those with direct object first in the prose Middle English
Sermons (p. 43). Note that lines in the two examples from Spenser would be
metrically irregular were it not for the major constituent breaks between time and
did, foot and knew: time would otherwise be a stress-maximum in a Weak position,
and the ‘heavy foot’ of knew Diamond frequently follows a major break (see Halle
and Keyser 1971: 168ff.).
 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order I3

Subject/Aux inversion is optional in NE with preposed locative and directional

expressions, e.g.,

Under the porch satfran the cat.

Under the porch the cat sat/ran.

(For some discussion of this surprisingly obscure transformation in NE, see Aissen
and Hankamer 1972). A preposed time or place adverbial seems to trigger Subject/
Aux inversion frequently in Shakespeare, even in prose, especially when the subject
is pronominal :

(59) now shalt thou be moved (I Hen. IV. II.iv.422).

(60) Why, there is it (I Hen. IV. III.ii.14).
(61) Some hour before you took me from the breach of the sea was my sister drowned (TN.
II.i.19).
(62) the very same day did Ifight with one Sampson Stockfish (2 Hen. IV. 11X33).

3.5 Impossible Orders

It may seem that with Topicalization, Subj/Aux inversion, and SOV re-ordering,
all orders of major constituents are possible, and that the notion that schematic
transformations express an hypothesis about possible orderings therefore collapses
into random poetic licenses. This is not true: at least two simple orderings are still
ruled out for English (VSO, VOS; VSO is of course a possible order in questions in
ENE, though according to Franz already somewhat elevated - 6 706a). Further,
certain gappings are ruled out. We can have

SO + SOV (= 8)
sv + svo (= 54)
svo + so (= 13-15)
SOV + SO (Reason to my Passion yielded, Passion unto my Rage, Rage to a
hastie revenge - Sidney, cited in Rubel 1941: 126)

but not

SVO + SV (*He killed it and she cleaned [it] )

SOV + SV (*She it killed and he [it] cleaned)
SO + SVO (*She him and they kissed them)

In fact, I have found no examples of

OS + OSV (*Him Mary and them Sam kissed)

OSV + OS (*Him Mary kissed and them, Sam)
suggesting that Topicalization occurs after Conjunction Reduction. Thus it seems
that the literary deletions and re-orderings described by the rhetoricians and found
14 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order

in the poets can be derived by one ‘literary’ re-ordering transformation and the in-
dependently needed rules of Topicalization, Gapping, and Conjunction Reduction
(including Node-Raising). Since these rules restrict the set of possible random order-
ings, they show that even Spenserian syntax is not the product of random poetic li-
cense, but in fact is quite similar, formally, to normal English, requiring about the
same amount of syntactic adjustment from the modern reader that Chaucer does
phonologically.
I would like to conclude with one or two reflections on the general literary func-
tion of these schemes, since they do much more than simply ‘ornament’ the poetry.
Both Topicalization and Variable Verb-Final have obvious ‘presentational’ or focus-
sing effect, foregrounding certain material that would otherwise appear later. They
also facilitate rhyme: this is very clear in Spenser, whose rhyme scheme strains the
resources ‘of English severly - the great majority of Verb-Final shiits get the verb
to the end of one line where it both rhymes and matches clause boundary with line
boundary, as in these lines:

Thus as they passed,

The day with clouds was sudden overcast,
And angry Jove an hideous storm of rain
Did pour into his lemans lap so fast,
That every wight to shroud it did constrain,
And this fair couple eke to shroud themselves were fain (FQ. I.i.6).

The metrical effects of Topicalization and other re-ordering transformations are

also very important, since these Ts introduce major syntactic breaks which can
render lines more regular. Similarly, many of Milton’s re-ordering ‘save’ otherwise
un-metrical lines. Consider the last line of Paradise lost

ThroughEden took thir solitary way

which, without preposing of the PP, would have stress maxima in two W positions:

Took thir solitary way through Eden.

Again, PP-preposing and Topicalization render metrical

By falsities and lies the greatest part

Of Mankind they corrupted (I.367-368).

what would otherwise have a stress-maximum in W position (corrupted) and end

with an extra weak syllable, which Milton shuns

They corrupted thegreatest part of Mankind

By falsities and lies

As a last example, the SOV order renders regular

his creating hand
Nothing imperfet or deficient left (PL. 1X.344-345)
 G.L. DillonfLiterary tmnsformations and poetic word order 15

which would otherwise have two stress-maxima in W positions:

Left nothing imperfet or deficient

The point of all this is that it is not a curious historical accident that some of the
great English poets used these ‘literary transformations’ because they happened to
live in the Renaissance and the Renaissance happened to be interested in classical
rhetoric. Further, since their usefulness is clear, and the transformations involved
occur in many languages, we would expect them to occur in other languages. In this
regard a remark in the DudenCrammatik is intriguing: “Endstellung der Personal-
form in Hauptdtzen war in Althochdeutschen hgutig. Sie war vor allem in der
klassischen Dichtung als Stilmittel noch beliebt. Heute ist sie veraltet: . . . das
Miidchen kam und nicht in acht das Veilchen nahm (Goethe). Und hinein mit be-
dachtigem Schritt ein Lowe tritt (Schiller)” (0 7010). It would seem that the kind
of analysis made here for Elizabethan literary syntax could profitably be carried
out in a number of languages.
I would like to conclude with a note of qualification. It is not the case that all
poets who used these schemes observed the same constraints on their use that apply
in modem English. Milton, in particular, applies Topicalization to one member of a
conjoined 0 and to the Complement of a Noun:

Sea he had searcht and Land (PL 1X.76)

Of these the vigilance
I dread (PL. 1X.157-158)

In normal usage, these are Islands exempt from ‘chopping’ (see Ross 1967, esp.
p. 111; Stockwell et al. 1973: 463f. for discussion). Milton also allows Variable-
Verb-Final to split conjoined OS and N + Comp:
For we to him indeed a11praises owe
And daily thanks (PL. IV.444-445)

They looking back, all th’Eastern side beheld

Of Paradise (PL. XII.64lf.)

There is a generalization to be made here, however, which captures a good bit of

what is unusual even for poetry in Milton’s syntax: he has no Islands - that is, vir-
tually any syntactic grouping may be re-ordered. His adoption of the Italian poets’
splitting of adjectives (Prince 1954: 112f.) is another reflection of this general fact:

with wand ‘ring steps and slow (PL. X11.648)

Yet another is this moving of relative clauses arbitrarily far away from the heads
they modify

Him the Almighty Power

Hurl ‘d headlong flaming from th ‘Ethereal Sky
With hideous ruin and combustion down
16 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order

To bottomless perdition, there to dwell

In Adamantine Chains and penal Fire,
Who durst defy th ‘Omnipotent to Arms. (PL. 1.44-49)

and to apply Relative Clause Reduction (IVH + be deletion) when so removed (this
is also impossible in modern English):

and the torrid clime

Smote on him sore besides, vaulted with Fire (PL. 1.297-298)
say first what cause
Mov’d our Grand Parents in that happy State,
Favord of Heav ‘n so highly, to fall off
From thir Creator, and transgress his Will
For one restraint, Lords of the World besides? (PL. 1.28-32)

Milton’s readiness to break up Islands is something of an extreme in English poetry,

and the formulations of syntactic inversions made possible by transformational
grammar enable us to see in just what respects he is unique. It is primarily the
power of transformational grammar to state generalizations about syntactic strate-
gies that recommends it so much as tool of analysis. There are of course many dis-
puted points and alternative treatments of Conjunction Reduction and contraints
on movement and deletion transformations. The field is developing so rapidly that
one runs the risk of premature anachronism if one claims that certain stylistic
movements cannot be naturally described in this format (as I believe is the case
with examples 9-15 inter ulia in Valesio 1970). Transformational grammar is any-
thing but a finished tool, but I hope that I have shown that it is a natural and prom-
ising one for describing poetic syntax.

APPENDIX ON TRANSFORMATIONS

A. Conjunction Reduction

CR is actually a rule-schema. I wilI follow the formulation of Stockwell et al. (1972) which
includes Node-Raising as one option, but will show that option under B.
Very informally, CR properly analyses a conjoined pair (or triplet, etc.) of sentences into
corresponding B and C parts, then Chomsky-adjoins each B and C part:

(2)
and vs\ - and //SK

Np/s:p &+
w A SA
I&P ii-P Lp iJP
I I I I
hours pass away days pass away hours days pass away pass away
B C B C
 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order 11

Node-relabelBng relables co-ordinate constituents of the same type, ‘moving the label up’, and
Identical Conjunct Deletion ‘CoBapses identical conjuncts:

and //‘\ - and//‘\

VP
P\ /“\ 27,

Y ‘i” ‘i” ;” B I
hours days pass away pass away hours days pass away

(Other transformations lower and spread and delete the conjunction.)

Example (1) from AdH. appears to be derived by CR, followed by Topicalization. Assuming
an SOV order:

aut formae dignitas a morbo deflorescit aut formae dignitas a vetustate deflorescit
CR
-
formae dignitas aut a morbo aut a vetustate deflorescit
TOP
-
out morbo aut vetustate formae dignitas deflorescit (~1)

B. Node-Raising

The CR scheme does not require B to be a constituent. When C of the proper analysis is
a final constituent only, the effect is of ‘Node-Raising’ (Maling, 1972 - Ross’ ‘Conjunction
Reduction’):

Mary is Joan will be asleep Mary is Joan will be asleep

T C B c

This option derives (4), as noted in the text. If this option is taken for
au t formae dignitas a morbo deflorescit aut formae dignitas a vetustate deflorescit

B C B C
18 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order

the derived structure is

bP
formae dig.
I\
a morbo formae dig.
T
a vetustate heflorescit

-E- c- -E- -E-

CR can again apply with the bracketing as indicated, yielding

formae dignitas aut morbo aut vetustate dejlorescit

C. Scrambling

Ross’ Scrambling, which applies to Latin but not to English, reorders the constituents of
major nodes (1967: 3.1.2). Thus for Latin, assuming SOV order, we can get SVO, OVS, VOS.
Scrambling applied to the previous structure would re-order V and S, giving

deflorescit formae dignitas out morbo aut vetustate (= 11)

In Latin literature, the kind of radical re-ordering of constituents cited by Ross as motivation
for Scrambling is distinctive of poetry. The rhetoricians all note it, particularly the effect of
separating ADJ and N modified, usually citing Virgil (Quin. VILvi.62-67; Ad Herennium
IV.44). Quintilian cites Aeneid 1.109 as an example of excessive or confusing “trangressio”.
This criticism appears in Peacham (1577) as well, under the heading of synchisis, where Aeneia
I.195 is cited as an example of confusing re-orderings (G i recta).

D. Gapping

Following Maling (1972), I assume Gapping works only left-to-right in conjoined structures
to delete the second occurrence of a V (and third, etc.):

(13)

zs>s,
NP
7,

‘; “1”
her beauty pierce mine eyes her speech (Gapped) mine heart
 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order 19

Quintilian’s example (12) is presumably derived from the structure reflected in

libido pudorem vicit & audacia timorem vicit & amentia rationem vicit

by first Scambling on the VP and S nodes to

vicit pudorem libido & vicit timorem audacia & vicit rationem amentia

and then Gapping the second and third vicits.

E. ‘Split conjuncts’

The ‘split conjuncts’ of (16-18) seem to be derived by Gapping and CR. For (16)

auty ‘1
Np/s\
NPAS’vP
Y\
PP’ \v
K ‘i A I
formae dig. a morbo dejlorescit formae dig. a vetustate dejlorescit

T<HS\
s’ 1s s~------b
IbP IkP +P
I
formae dig.
I formae dig.
Piw-
a morbo
v
dejiorescit a’ vetustate

Note that (18) could be derived with SVO order, then Verb-final. This produces the same
derived structure, but simply shows that the input order is irrelevant to the derivation of these
sentences (though it is relevant to ‘left-gapped’ types (6, g-10)).

F. Variable verb-final

In Elizabethan poetry, this rule is variable in two ways: (1) over the amount of Comple-
ment moved over by the V. This can be formulated as
VY
1 2 =*where Y = [NP . . .] and does not include # (clause boundary)
02+1
20 G.L. DillonlLirerary transformations and poetic word order

(2) whether AUX ‘goes along with’ the V or not. Combining these:

XAUXVY
1 2 34=
I 2/Q 9 4+@2 +3

This fives four possible outcomes:

i. NPAUX NP v z (= 45)
ii. NP NP AUX v z (= 46,47)
iii. NP NP Z AUX V (= 48-50)
iv. NP AUX NP Z V (She had this knight from far compelled - FQ I.i.5) (= 8,9)

<I am assuming Y’ here is a cover-term for V, ADJ (predicate) or participial). Notice that this
is unlike the Germanic Verb-Final rule mentioned in Bach and Ross in that the AUX precedes
the V when they both shift. That is, this rule provides no evidence for ‘AUXs as Main Verbs’.
Finally, if an ADV occurs between AUX and V, and AUX is moved, the ADV moves also
(cf. FQ. I.i.t-63). The rule should thus be revised to read:

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

AdH. ‘Cornificius’, Rheton’ca ad Herennium (see References).

John Milton:
PI. Paradise lost
Alexander Pope:
R ofL. The Rape of the Lock
Edmund Spenser (= Spen.):
FQ. The faerie queen
Mut. Two cantoes of mutability
Putt. Puttenham, The arte of English poesie (see References).
Quin. Quintilian, fnsrirutio oratoria (see References).
William Shakespeare (= Shak.)
AW. All’s well that ends well
Ham. Hamlet
I(2) Hen. IV. King Henry the fourth, Part one (Two)
Hen. VIII. King Henry the eighth
Lear King Lear
M ado Much ado about nothing
MND. Midsummer nigh r’s dream
0th. OrheNo
Ric. II. (III.) Richard the second (third)
RJ. Romeo and Juliet
R of Lu. The rape of Lucrece
Temp. 7%e tempest
TN. Twelfth nigh 1
 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order 21

REFERENCES

Abbott, E.A. 1970. A Shakespearian grammar. Reprint. New York: Dover Publications. First
edition, 1966.
A&en, Judith, and Jorge Hankamer. 1972. Shifty subjects: a conspiracy in syntax? Linguistic
inquiry 3 : 501-504.
Bach, Emmon. 1971. Questions. Linguistic inquiry 2: 153-166.
Bloomtield, Morton. 1963. A grammatical approach to personification allegory. Modem philol-
ogy 40: 161-171.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
‘Corniticius’. Rhetorica ad Herennium. Harry Caplan, ed. Loeb edition, Cambridge, Mass.: Har-
vard University Press, 1954. (=Ad H.)
DudenGrammatik. 1966. Paul Grebe, ed. 2nd ed. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. Ph.D. dissertation. Cam-
bridge, Mass: M.I.T. Available from the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Franz, Wilhelm. 1939. Die Sprache Shakespeares. 4. Aufl. Haile and SaaIe: Niemeyer.
HaIle, Morris, and S.J. Keyser. 1971. English stress: its form, its growth, and its role in verse.
New York: Harper and Row.
Jacobs, Roderick, and Peter Rosenbaum. 1971. Transformations, style, and meaning. Waltham,
Mass.: Xerox.
Joseph, Sister Miriam. 1947. Shakespeare’s use of the arts of language. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Lanham, Richard. 1968. A handlist of rhetorical terms. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
of California Press.
Maling, Joan M. 1972. On ‘Gapping and the order of constituents’. Linquistic inquiry 3: lOl-
108.
Peacham, Henry. 1577. The garden of eloquence. Fats. reproduction with introduction by
William G. Crane. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1954.
Postal, Paul. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Puttenham, George. 1589. The arte of English poesie. Fats. ed. 1971. New York: Da Capo
Press; Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum. (= Putt.)
Quintilian. Institutio oratoria. H.E. Butler, ed. Loeb edition. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Univer-
sity Press. (= Quin.)
ROSS,John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Available from Indiana University
Linguistics Club.
Ross, John Robert. 1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. In: Bierwisch and Heidelph
(eds.), Progress in Iinquistics. The Hague: Mouton.
Rubel, Verk L. 1941. Poetic diction in the English renaissance. New York: Modern Language
Association. Reprint 1966, Kraus Reprint Co.
Stockwell, Robert, Paul Schachter, and Barbara Hall Partee. 1972. The major syntactic struc-
tures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Swieczkowski, Walerian. 1962. Word order patterning in Middle English. The Hague: Mouton.
Thomas, Owen, 1968. Metaphor and related subjects. New York: Random House.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Valesio, Paolo. 1970. Hysteron proteron and the structure of this course.
Weinreich, Uriel. 1966. Explorations in semantic theory. In: T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Current trends
in linquistics. The Hague: Mouton.
22 G.L. Dillon/Literary transformations and poetic word order

George L. Dillon (b. 1944) is Assistant Professor at Indiana University-Purdue University at

Fort Wayne. He is interested in literary language, and in syntactic and semantic theory.
He has written ‘The seventeenth-century shift in the theory and language of passion’,
Language and style 4 (1971): 131-143; ‘Perfect and other aspects in a case grammar of En-
glish’, Journal of linguistics 9 (1973): 271-279; ‘Complexity and change of character in neo-
classical criticism’, Journal of the history of ideas 35 (1974): 51-61; ‘Some postulates charac-
terizing volitive NP’, Journal of linquistics lO(1974): 221-33;‘Inversion and deletionin poetry’,
Language and style (forthcoming); ‘Clause, cause and punctuation in poetry’, Linquistics (forth-
coming).