 After the radical inflectional losses that characterised the previous periods of English, so few inflections were left that, from about 1500 onwards, most of the grammar of English was carried by syntax rather than by morphology. In many ways, the syntax of early modern English was like that of present-day English. Nevertheless, there were differences. The central goal of this e-lecture is to point out these differences. In particular, we will look at word-order patterns in early modern English, we will discuss the sequence of head and modifiers again, and as a special feature of early modern English, we will take a look at the structure of the verb phrase. The examples that will illustrate all these developments have been taken from the works of William Shakespeare, whose dramas and poems constitute the most influential literary source of that time. So let's start with the discussion of word-order. In early modern English, the order subject verb object was now the main word-order. It occurred in main and subordinate declarative clauses and was most widely spread in the literature. However, deviant patterns still occurred. Let us look at some examples. Now, the first two examples come from Hamlet, and they illustrate quite nicely the flexibility of word-order. In the first case, it will make a ghost of him. We clearly have an example of an SVO structure, whereas in the second case, the memory be green and that it will be fitted exhibits subject-object verb. And as we can see, the S-O-V pattern in the second case was still an available option during the early modern English period, especially for pronominal objects and in subordinate clauses. Here are two further examples, this time taken from Romeo and Juliet. This, Nate, I hold on a custom fist. Again, the use of the predominant word-order SVO. However, in this live philly, we have an OVS structure, object fronting. So again, subject verb object is used. In fact, most often, but other patterns still occurred. And this is even more supported by our last example from Macbeth. That, which rather though just fear to do. And here we have an example of object-subject verb. Now word-order patterns such as object-verb-subject or object-subject verb occasionally appear in early modern English texts, but they are very rare, especially in prose. By the way, did you notice that two items, that and which, in succession, that is two complementizers on the trot? Examples like these have played an important role in theoretical syntax, but that's a different story. Anyway, as a first conclusion, we can say that early modern English was predominantly an SVO language. Let us now look at head modifier patterns. The trend in early modern English in terms of word-order correlations was still mixed. Typical head modifier patterns can be found in prepositional phrases, like on his horse, where the preposition precedes its noun phrase. Noun-adjective patterns, by contrast, as in this creature fruitful were relatively rare in early modern English. Modifier head patterns, so mh, Modifier head patterns, by contrast were predominant in the sequence adjective noun, but did no longer occur within adpositional phrases where postpositions were no longer used. And what about sentence structure? Well, like in Middle English, early modern English prose, at least during its early phases, favored coordination, rather than heavy subordination. And clauses within complex sentences were preferably linked by simple coordinators such as and, but, and for. However, during the Renaissance, the revival of classical learning led to an increase in the use of elegant English and the trend towards subordination with conjunctions such as when, if, or because, etc., resulting in relatively long sentences became obvious. In poetry, the syntax of early modern English was essentially the same. However, poets like Shakespeare frequently used deviant word-order patterns to meet the special demands of rhyme and verse. Let us now look at the verb phrase in early modern English. The modern system of compound verb phrases began in Middle English and continued in early modern English. Today, verb phrases exhibit an optional modal verb, one or several primary auxiliary verbs and a lexical verb. Here are some examples. Might have been beaten, modal verb plus two auxiliary verbs and then the lexical verb. Or has been seen, two auxiliary verbs and then the lexical verb. Or will be going, modal verb, one auxiliary verb and the lexical verb and so on and so forth. The choice of the elements within a verb phrase depends on a number of syntactic rules which began to emerge during the early modern English period, but could be applied more flexibly than in present-day English. And these rules concern the choice of the primary auxiliary, have and or be. The use of the dummy auxiliary do. The integration of the progressive aspect and last but not least the system of the modal verbs themselves. So let us look at these aspects in more detail. Let's start with the primary auxiliary verb. In contrast to present-day English, early modern English had two auxiliary options to mark the present perfect aspect. Have and be. Here are two examples from the taming of the shrew. I have raved at the last and and to padua cum. Now the standard auxiliary for perfect forms was have. However, perfect forms with be were also used and were especially common. And they were especially common in contexts where we had verbs of motion such as come, enter and run. Or verbs of change of state become, grow, turn, etc. However, this rule was not applied consistently. Here is a counter example. Since we have come so far, now here the use of have denotes a continuing process rather than the result of the action of the verb. Another aspect concerns the use of the dummy auxiliary do. In present-day English, the semantically empty primary auxiliary do is used in the following contexts best remembered as the nice or N-I-C-E contexts where the N stands for negation, the I for inversion, the C for code, and the E for emphasis. Now here are some examples. I do not go. Do I go? I go. Don't I and I do go? So these are the typical contexts where do can be used in present-day English. Early modern English used do in the same contexts but was less strict in the use of do support. Let us take the first two contexts, negation and inversion to illustrate this. Here you have two examples. A C, you do not mean to part with her, so that is a use of do, which is in accordance with the present-day English principles of creating negation. And in the second case, I know not what to say. Well here we have the old form, the early modern English variant where we can form negative sentences without do support. And in the second case, do you hear, sir? Well here we have a question with do support, but came you from the church? Well in this case, of course, we have simple inversion without do support. Originally, do was primarily used as a causative verb as in this context. Do make myself a suitor to your daughter? A typical causative context. Thus it is not surprising that this context constitutes the basis for the majority of the examples in early modern English. So these are examples here, mostly then emphasis and code. Or shall I send my daughter? I pray you do. I do assure the feather. Well, in this case, code and emphasis. We have a use of do, which is in line with the NICE principles. The other context, especially negation and inversion, as already pointed out, were handled much less strictly. That is, they often occurred without do support. The progressive form began to appear in Middle English and became common during the early modern English period. Here are some examples. You're passing welcome. That no is laying in Marseille's road. Well, here we have the typical use. Now, the present participle itself was primarily used as a non-finite clause. Today, we would say a gerund. Six score fat accents standing in Marseille's. Well, here we clearly have a gerund. And also the combination of progressive form and perfect aspect can be found in early modern English. That have been long-studying at Reims. So here we have three variants of using the progressive aspect in early modern English. Last but not least, the system of modal verbs. In early modern English, the modal verbs, also referred to as secondary auxiliary verbs, were used in the context we have already described as the NICE contexts. I think he cannot choose. What can you assure her? Counsel me, Tranieu, for I know though canst, wherein your cunning can assist me much. Well, here are the three contexts. And that would be a sort of use that is in line with the present-day English principles. Yet, there were differences between early modern English and present-day English. On the one hand, modals could still be inflicted. As illustrated over here, though canst. And then they could be used without a verbal complement. And here we have two examples. Hortensio, will you any waif? And a must-a-way today before Naikum. So two nice examples where we have just the modal verb without a verbal complement. So even though the verb phrase was formerly not very much different from present-day English, the actual realization of its component parts was. Now before we summarize, let me point out once more that there is an entry, early modern English, in the VLC language index, which allows you to look at further data that has been analyzed for you. So let's look at it. Here it is. And in the morphology and syntax section, there are two examples, one from Romeo and Juliet and the second one taken from the taming of the shrew. And in both cases, you can listen. Or monstrous beast, how like a swan he lays. You have access to the transliteration. You can look at a syntactic functional analysis. And you have access to additional syntactic aspects like the lack of due support or adverbial proposing and so on. Well, let's summarize. Early modern English syntax was now almost like that of present-day English. The word order was predominantly SVO. And with the exception of adjective noun patterns, early modern English exhibited a head modifier sequence. Yet there were differences. These differences concerned the structure of the verb phrase and the elements within it, primary and secondary auxiliaries and the use of aspectual distinction. So despite the large number of similarities, there was still some way to go to reach the syntactic structure of present-day English. Thank you very much for attending my e-lectures on the historical development of English syntax.