Fischer 2000 Pathways-English

PATHWAYS OF CHANGE
PATHWAYS OF CHANGE
GRAMMATICALIZATION IN ENGLISH
Edited by
OLGA FISCHER
University of Amsterdam
ANETTE ROSENBACH
Heinrich Heine University
DIETER STEIN
Heinrich Heine University
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
Table of Contents
Contributors vii
Preface ix
Introduction 1
Olga Fischer and Anette Rosenbach
A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the
premodifying string 39
Sylvia Adamson
The grammaticalization of the verb pray 67
Minoji Akimoto
The grammaticalization of concessive markers in Early Modern Eng-
lish 85
Guohua Chen
Combining English auxiliaries 111
David Denison
Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to
before the innitive in English 149
Olga Fischer
Remarks on the de-grammaticalisation of innitival to in present-day
American English 171
Susan Fitzmaurice
The role of person and position in Old English 187
Elly van Gelderen
Remarks on (uni)directionality 207
Roger Lass
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
Solice and witodlice: Discourse markers in Old English 229
Ursula Lenker
Onginnan/beginnan with bare and to-innitive in lfric 251
Bettelou Los
Some suggestions for explaining the origin and development of the
denite article in English 275
Robert McColl Millar
Parallelism vs. asymmetry: The case of English counterfactual condi-
tionals 311
Rafa Molencki
The grammaticalization of the present perfect in English: Tracks of
change and continuity in a linguistic enclave 329
Sali A. Tagliamonte
Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: Methinks there is some
confusion 355
Ilse Wischer
Name index 371
Subject index 377
Contributors
Sylvia Adamson
Dept of English & American Studies,
University of Manchester,
Oxford Road,
Manchester M13 9PL
U.K.
sylvia.adamson@man.ac.uk
Olga Fischer
Engels Seminarium
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Spuistraat 210
1012 VT Amsterdam
The Netherlands
olga.scher@hum.uva.nl
Minoji Akimoto
Aoyama Gakuin University
31235 Azamino
Aoba-ku
Yokohama-shi
Kanagawa-ken 225-0011
Japan
Miha-ru@cc.aoyama.ac.jp
Susan M. Fitzmaurice
Northern Arizona University
Dept of English
Flagsta, AZ 860116032
USA
Susan.Fitzmaurice@nau.edu
Guohua Chen
Dept. of English
Beijing Foreign Studies University
2 Xisanhuan Bei Lu
Beijing 100089
China
Guohua@public.bta.net.cn
Elly van Gelderen
Arizona State University
Dept of English
PO Box 870302
Tempe, AZ 852870302
USA
Ellyvangelderen@asu.edu
David Denison
Dept of English & American Studies
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL
U.K.
d.denison@man.ac.uk
Roger Lass
Dept of Linguistics
University of Capetown
Rondebosch 7700
South Africa
Lass@iafrica.com
viii
Ursula Lenker
Institut fr Englische Philologie
LMU Mnchen
Schellingstr. 3/RG
80799 Mnchen
Germany
ursula.lenker@anglistik.uni-muenchen.de
Anette Rosenbach
Heinrich-Heine University
Anglistik III (Dept of English Linguistics)
Universittsstr. 1
D-40225 Dsseldorf
Germany
ar@phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de
Bettelou Los
Dept of English/ATW
Vrije Universiteit
De Boelelaan 1105
NL-1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
losb@let.vu.nl
Dieter Stein
Heinrich-Heine University
Anglistik III (Dept of English Linguistics)
Universittsstr. 1
D-40225 Dsseldorf
Germany
stein@phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de
Dept of English
Kings College
University of Aberdeen
Aberdeen AB19 2UB
Scotland
Enl097@abdn.ac.uk
Sali Tagliamonte
Dept of Language and Linguistic Science
University of York
Heslington
York YO1 5DD
U.K.
st17@york.ac.uk
Rafa Molencki
English Language Institute
University of Silesia
Zytnia 10
41205 Sosnowicc, Poland
molencki@usctouk1.cto.us.edu.pl
Ilse Wischer
Institut fr Anglistik/Amerikanistik
Universitt Potsdam
Postfach 601553
D-14415 Potsdam
Germany
Wischer@rz.uni-potsdam.de
Preface
This volume deals with one of the most-discussed subjects in the theory of
linguistic change at present, as manifested in a great number of publications over
recent years. It was one of the dominant themes at the XIII International Confer-
ence on Historical Linguistics 1017 August 1997 at Heinrich-Heine University,
Dsseldorf. Much of the work in the eld was carried out as is betting for
work on a linguistic concept of general theoretical validity on a wide variety
of languages, and work on English was relatively underrepresented, which
produced the idea of creating a volume dedicated to grammaticalization processes
in English only, or better, solely in English (cf. 2.4 of the Introduction).
From the papers read at the conference on the intersection of the two
criteria, grammaticalization and English, a selection of papers was singled out
(the papers by Akimoto, Chen, Fischer, van Gelderen, Lenker, Los, Millar,
Molencki, Tagliamonte and Wischer) and subjected to the same refereeing
procedures as for the rest of the papers submitted for publication in the main
conference volume (Historical Linguistics 1997, eds. Monika Schmid, Jennifer
Austin and Dieter Stein, Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1998). In order to yield as
full and representative a range of papers on the subject as possible, a number of
papers were then solicited from renowned scholars (the balance of the papers).
After very extended processes of reviewing, editing and re-writing with no
pressure of time, a stage of maturation was reached in the opinion of the editors
that certainly warranted publication. In the last stages of the preparation of the
volume, John Benjamins, and especially Kees Vaes, Werner Abraham and
Michael Noonan, have to be credited for an unusually speedy and ecient
processing of the volume.
In its present shape, the volume owes a great debt of gratitude to many
scholars who have contributed comments to all or some of the papers, especially
the reviewers for the volume, and Elizabeth Traugott, who contributed signicant
comments on an earlier version of the volume. The bulk of the copy-editing task
was primarily overseen by one of the editors, Anette Rosenbach, who was
x
supported by Sandra Guerrero and Barbara Schulz of the Department of English
Language and Linguistics at Heinrich-Heine University, Dsseldorf.
Dsseldorf, March 2000 Dieter Stein
Introduction
Olga Fischer Anette Rosenbach
University of Amsterdam Heinrich-Heine University
1. Introduction
The concept of grammaticalization is arguably the most widely discussed concept
of linguistic change. As such, it is not surprising that the concept has been a
central presence at the recent meetings of ICHL in Dsseldorf, August 1997 and
Vancouver, August 1999. Most of the articles in the present volume are a
selection of papers presented at the XIII International Conference on Historical
Linguistics (Dsseldorf, August 1997), with additionally invited contributions by
Sylvia Adamson, David Denison, Susan Fitzmaurice and Roger Lass. The
purpose of this volume is to broaden the range of empirical cases of grammatica-
lization in one particular language, i.e. English, and thereby cast more light on
a number of current themes in grammaticalization, which will be highlighted in
this introduction.
We shall rst give a brief description of grammaticalization as an empirical
phenomenon (Section 2) with special attention given to the role played by
grammaticalization in the English language. We will present an overview of the
various approaches to grammaticalization (Section 3), focusing on the dierent
perspectives and objectives in formal and functional accounts of grammatical-
ization. Next (Section 4), the major mechanisms and causes of grammatical-
ization will be presented as seen from a functional-diachronic perspective, which
is the approach followed by most of the contributors to this volume. This section
will pay attention to some controversial issues that are currently being discussed
and which are addressed in this volume by some of the contributions, such as the
question of unidirectionality in grammaticalization processes (see the studies by
Fischer, Fitzmaurice and Lass) and the status of grammaticalization as an
explanatory tool (see Fischer and Lass).
2 OLGA FISCHER AND ANETTE ROSENBACH
2. What is grammaticalization?
2.1 The traditional view
Grammaticalization is generally seen as a process whereby a lexical item, with
full referential meaning (i.e. an open-class element), develops grammatical
meaning (i.e. it becomes a closed-class element); this is accompanied by a
reduction in or loss of phonetic substance, loss of syntactic independence and of
lexical (referential) meaning. In this sense, grammaticalization is an empirical
phenomenon, studied historically; a process which was probably rst described
under this heading by Meillet (1912) even though the insights date from much
earlier (for a succinct history of the development of the idea of grammatical-
ization, see Hopper and Traugott 1993: 15.). The process of grammaticalization
involves changes in both form and meaning. Usually, formal and semantic
phenomena go hand in hand. It is important to note, however, that the formal and
the semantic do not necessarily go together: there may be formal changes
without meaning changes, and meaning changes without formal ones. In addition,
not every change is a case of grammaticalization. A crucial question in this
connection is: what provides the trigger for grammaticalization? Is it form or
meaning? We believe that this is a dicult question to answer in any general
sense, but it is a point that should be investigated in each individual analysis of
an attested case of grammaticalization. In other words, in each investigation form
and meaning developments should be separately discussed. It is clear that the
various approaches (within formal and functional theories) to grammaticalization
emphasize the roles played by form and meaning dierently (see further Section 3).
In terms of form (the role played by meaning will be more fully discussed
in Section 3), the reduction that takes place when a lexical item grammaticalizes
could be described as follows (cf. Hopper and Traugott 1993: 7),
coN1rN1 i1rx > c:xx:1ic:i vob > cii1ic > iNrirc1ioN:i :rrix
> zro
A well-known illustration of this process is adverb formation in Romance
languages, e.g. in French or Italian (cf. Hopper and Traugott 1993: 130133). We
can roughly distinguish the following stages:
(1) a. (Latin) humile mente: with a humble mind
b. i. (Old French) humble(-)ment: in a humble(-)way
ii. lentement: in a slow-way
iii. humble e doucement: in a humble and gentle-way
INTRODUCTION 3
c. humblement: humbly
humblement et doucement: humbly and gently
At stage (a), the Latin feminine noun mens (ablative mente) could be used with
adjectives to indicate the state of mind in/with which something was done. At a
next stage, the phrase acquired a more general meaning (b.i), and mente came to
be used also with adjectives not restricted to a psychological sense (b.ii). How-
ever, mente retained some of its independence in that, in a conjoined adjectival
phrase, the morpheme did not need to be repeated (b.iii). Finally during stage (c),
the noun fully developed into a inectional morpheme, the only remnant of the
original construction being the feminine e ending after the adjectival stem,
which now serves mainly as a kind of epenthetic vowel to ease pronunciation.
Another illustration of a still ongoing grammaticalization process can be
given from English (cf. Hopper and Traugott 1993: 23),
(2) a. I am going (to Haarlem) to visit my aunt
b. I am going to marry (tomorrow)
c. I am going to like it
d. It is going to rain
e. I am going to go there for sure
f. Im gonna go
In the rst example go is used as a concrete directional verb (i.e. the verb is
still fully lexical), and the innitive consequently has a purposive function
(syntactically it is an adjunct, i.e. it modies the innitive). In contexts where
the nite verb and the innitive are adjacent, the directionality of the verb could
change from a locative into a temporal one, expressing futurity (b). The meaning
of each particular case depends quite heavily on context: e.g., the addition of
tomorrow in (b) makes a purely temporal interpretation much more likely. Once
this non-directional sense has developed, the verb go also begins to be found
with innitives which are incompatible with a purposive meaning as in (c), and
from there it may spread to other structures (de), more and more losing its
concrete directional sense. Syntactic changes seem to go hand in hand with these
changes in meaning: in (df) the verb go has changed from a full verb into a
(semi-)auxiliary. As a result of the loss of directional content, the verbal structure
also frequently undergoes loss of phonetic substance, which is shown in (f).
It is to be noted that this particular grammaticalization process reects
diachronic development as well as synchronic variation. This situation is quite
common: the forms reecting various stages of grammaticalization and the non-
grammaticalized forms occur side by side. This phenomenon has been called
layering (cf. Hopper 1991: 2224; Hopper and Traugott 1993: 123.). When
the grammaticalized and non-grammaticalized forms go their own separate ways,
Hopper (1991) speaks of divergence. An example of this would be the inde-
nite article (a)n and the numeral one, which both go back to the same Old
English form an (cf. Hopper and Traugott 1993: 116.; Hopper 1991: 2425);
another instance is the divergence taking place in the verb pray, as described by
Akimoto in this volume. Tagliamonte, also in this volume, shows how syn-
chronic layering and diachronic development overlap. She looks at how an
isolated dialect of English (Saman English) expresses the irsrN1 irrrc1
(i.e. the meaning(s) it has in present-day English) in a layer of dierent forms
(such as the preterite, nr/been/done + past participle etc.), many of which were
used in the history of English. By presenting its synchronic state, she is able to
establish which factors cause the appearance of one or other of these forms
(factors such as aspect, temporal distance, particular collocations etc.); this in
turn may deepen our insight into how these forms were actuated and used in the
history of English.
2.2 Some more recent developments within grammaticalization
With the arrival of structuralism, much less attention was paid to this essentially
diachronic phenomenon of grammaticalization. It was only in the seventies, when
more and more linguists began to express their dissatisfaction with the strictly
dichotomous structural model (in terms of the split between diachrony and
synchrony) and with the idea of an autonomous syntactic theory, that the
phenomenon of grammaticalization gained new interest. Due to this revival and
to the spread of functional-cognitive models of language, new perspectives on
grammaticalization emerged. In typological work on grammaticalization (see
further Section 3), the connection with the historical perspective is still close, but
the removal of the strict dividing line between diachrony and synchrony also led
to grammaticalization being studied from a more synchronic angle (see especially
the work of Elizabeth Traugott [1982, and later studies] and Eve Sweetser 1990).
Here grammaticalization is seen as a syntactic, discourse-pragmatic phenomenon,
where we witness the semantic development of lexical items from the proposi-
tional domain to the textual domain, and from there to the expressive domain; a
development whereby the meaning of the lexical item changes from less to more
situated in the speakers mental attitude.
This latter type of grammaticalization, which can also be seen like the
more traditional type discussed above to operate diachronically, is in this
volume discussed synchronically by Lenker with reference to the use of Old
INTRODUCTION 5
English manner adverbs, such as solice and witodlice, which are shown to play
a role on the discourse level in Old English as well. Akimotos contribution (also
this volume) addresses this point diachronically. He notes that the phrase I pray
thee developed (via reduced forms such as I pray/prithee and pray) from the
propositional level into a discourse marker; it skipped the textual level, however,
which he attributes to the fact that the phrase retained some of its referential
meaning, being used as a marker of politeness rather than a general discourse
marker. It is also interesting to observe that Los (this volume) notes, as it were
in passing, that discourse-markers need not arise via this particular lexical cline.
In her explanation of the grammaticalization of Old English onginnan/beginnan
begin into inchoative and perfective markers, she shows how both verbs play
a role in more or less xed constructions (i.e. / +to-innitive and
a + / + bare innitive) that came to be used as foregrounding
devices in discourse, whereby sentence-initial / + to-innitive
functioned as a marker of thematic discontinuity (much like the adverbs witodlice
and solice discussed by Lenker), while a + / + bare innitive is
used to continue the smooth ow of narrative events. (More on this development,
which often goes under the name of subjectication, will be found in Sec-
tion 4.2).
2.3 Grammaticalization versus lexicalization and degrammaticalization
Closely linked to grammaticalization is the concept of lexicalization. At present,
however, there seems to be no consensus as to what exactly this relation
involves. For some linguists, grammaticalization and lexicalization are each
others opposites. Thus, Ramat (1982) considers lexicalization to be an aspect of
degrammaticalization in that degrammaticalization processes may lead to new
lexemes (p. 550). For instance, in English and also in German, suxes like
-ism and -itis are used (often jocularly, and with pejorative meaning, referring to
all the abstract ills of present-day society) as full lexical items, with a special-
ized referential content. For Lehmann (1999) (and see also Traugott 1996, and
Chen, this volume), however, lexicalization is an aspect of grammaticalization.
He sees both lexicalization and grammaticalization as reduction processes, but
taking place on dierent planes, i.e. in the lexicon and grammar respectively.
Lexicalization, according to this view, takes place when a noun, adjective or verb
together with a preposition or particle forms a new lexical unit, e.g. in front of,
as long as, (to) look after, (to) be going to. This type of lexicalization may
constitute a preparatory phase for grammaticalization in that the new, compound,
lexical unit may begin to move up the cline of grammatical categories, becoming
more and more grammatical on the way, i.e. functioning as a regular preposition
(beside, between), conjunction (whilst, because) or auxiliary (to be going to). In
this sense, lexicalization is not the opposite of grammaticalization or similar to
degrammaticalization, but it is the opposite of folk-etymology, in which language
users take an erstwhile lexical item apart and pseudo-transparentize it.
The issue of the status of lexicalization in general is addressed in this
volume by Wischer. She shows that the lexicalization of the Old English
impersonal syntactic phrase me/e/him ynce to early Modern English invariant
methinks is not an aspect of degrammaticalization (because there is no signicant
change in the referential meaning of the phrase) but is much closer to the syn-
chronic type of grammaticalization mentioned above in Section 2.2. For a some-
what dierent case of degrammaticalization, involving not so much lexical-
ization in the sense of Ramat, but rather a divergent regrammaticalization based
on an older lexical sense (a kind of to-and-fro movement), see Fischer, this
volume.
2.4 Grammaticalization processes in English: The whys and hows
What exactly is the role played by grammaticalization in the English language?
Studies on grammaticalization mainly focus on languages with a rich morpholo-
gy, see for example studies on American languages (e.g. Chafe 1998; Mithun
1998) and the research conducted by Heine and associates on African languages
(e.g. Heine and Claudi 1986; Heine and Reh 1984; Heine 1999a and b). Also, the
development of creoles presents an ideal eld for the study of grammatical-
ization, since they are typical in developing new morphology fast, using full
lexical items to ll the gaps in the pidgin grammar. Creoles, so to speak,
represent grammaticalization in statu nascendi. From this point of view, however,
the English language does not seem to qualify as the ideal eld of activity for
the investigation of grammaticalization processes. In the course of the general
development from a synthetic to a more analytic character, the English language
has lost most of its inections, and today only meagre traces of morphology are
left. This increasing drift towards analyticity has, however, in turn created the
need for restructuring the grammatical system. It is in this context that new
function words, such as the denite article (see McColl Millar, this volume) and
the auxiliaries (see Denison and Tagliamonte, and to some extent also Los and
Molencki, this volume) have emerged in processes of grammaticalization. In this
respect, the situation in English is comparable to that of a creole. And indeed,
there is a huge discussion on whether English should actually be regarded as a
INTRODUCTION 7
creole (e.g. Domingue 1977; Poussa 1982; for a negative conclusion see
Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 9.8; Grlach 1990 [1986] and Allen 1997a).
Another advantage of studying grammaticalization processes in English is
methodological in nature. In contrast to most African and American languages,
English has a well-attested written history and therefore provides a sound
empirical basis for diachronic research. Admittedly, the written history of English
can only be considered as sketchy and fairly incomplete (or, in Lass terms [this
volume] it may not be statistically well-formed) and is by no means represen-
tative of the actual language spoken, but at least some historical evidence is
available. Reconstruction, in contrast, relies on synchronic data only to describe
a diachronic process and crucially hinges on the assumption that grammatical-
ization proceeds in one direction (see e.g. Heine 1999b). As the papers by
Fischer, Fitzmaurice and Lass in this volume show, however, this may well be
not as true and absolute as has usually been assumed (see also Section 4.3
below). In other words, while investigating grammaticalization processes in
English may at rst sight seem valuable from the perspective of an English
historical linguist only, it is also advantageous from a methodological-empirical
point of view because of the direct access we have to the diachronic stages of
English. This, in addition, makes these investigations an invaluable tool for
putting the reconstruction of grammaticalized elements in languages without a
long written history on a surer footing too. Interesting in this respect is the
contribution by Chen (this volume) on the grammaticalization of concessive
markers in English. On the basis of a detailed study of a diachronic corpus, he
shows that the general (typological) pathway proposed for concessive markers (as
in the work of Knig) may well need to be rethought. He nds, rstly, that
hypothetical concessives (also called conditional concessives) did not always
develop out of conditionals, but often out of more general concessive markers,
and, secondly, that factual concessive markers are also present at an early stage,
and not a later development from hypothetical concessives. This would explain,
for example, why (al)though shows no traces of condition in its early (Old
English) usage, and why it could express both hypothetical and factual conces-
sion from the very beginning.
Empirical in this volume is used in two ways (see also Figure 1 in
Section 4.3). In a strict sense of the term, empirical refers to the testing of
(potentially falsiable) hypotheses. It is in this sense that the studies by Fischer
and Fitzmaurice on innitival to have to be seen, both of which challenge the
prediction of the hypothesis of unidirectionality by presenting cases of possible
degrammaticalization. In a wider (or weaker) sense, empirical is simply
equivalent to data-based, which is the approach taken by the remaining articles
in this volume (except Lass paper, which is theoretical). Within such an
approach two dierent kinds of argumentations can be observed. First, it is
possible to argue in terms of language potential. From such a point of view, the
fact that a certain form or construction occurs at all is signicant in itself, no
matter how often. Sometimes it is also argued that the fact that a form or
construction does not occur is signicant too. Such negative evidence (ex
silentio), however, forms a much weaker type of evidence (see also Lass, this
volume). Second, within a quantitative analysis not only occurrence versus non-
occurrence counts, but the frequency with which a linguistic form occurs is
signicant. Such a frequency-based analysis seems particularly fruitful for the
analysis of synchronic variation (layering) . This is shown in this volume in the
contributions by van Gelderen, Los and Tagliamonte. In the study by Adamson
(also this volume), frequency analysis helps establish which of the various senses
of a form (lovely) is the more prototypical at a given time, thereby showing
how the prototypical meaning of lovely changes over time. Note, however, that
Lass (this volume) is, in general, fairly sceptical about inductive historical
generalizations. In his view, empirical studies often do not dene the population
on which generalizations are made, or the obligatory contexts of the construc-
tions under investigation . This may, however, be too pessimistic a view. In our
opinion, empirical studies do provide a useful tool to reveal the processes
involved in the process of grammaticalization, provided that they are conducted
in a careful and sensible way, and are not considered denitive.
3. Approaches to grammaticalization
The term grammaticalization is today used in various ways. In a fairly loose
sense, grammaticalized often simply refers to the fact that a form or construc-
tion has become xed and obligatory, for example when we say that SVO word
order has become grammaticalized in English. Similarly, it is often said that
certain concepts are or are not grammaticalized in a language, meaning
that they are expressed by grammatical elements. For example, the conceptual
distinction between alienable and inalienable possession is grammaticalized if
it correlates in a systematic way with certain (morpho-)syntactic forms. In these
cases, therefore, the term grammaticalization is a fairly static concept and
simply means xed or codied.
In a stricter sense, however, as introduced above (see Section 2.1), the
notion of grammaticalization is rst and foremost a diachronic process with
certain typical mechanisms, a process that can be identied by various diagnostics
INTRODUCTION 9
(see Section 4). The general concept of grammaticalization originally comes
from Indo-European studies (cf. e.g. Gabelentz 1891) and was given a formal
term by Meillet (1912), but, as we mentioned above, the idea was not further
pursued within the structuralist framework, because there the focus was on the
description of states, and not on processes. Language was not considered as a
historical object with a diachronic vector in it, but rather as a succession of
synchronic states generated by synchronic grammars. As we said, it was only
when such structural axioma were challenged by functionally-oriented approaches
that the concept of grammaticalization moved into the limelight again in
linguistic research. Recently, however, grammaticalization has also come to
gure more prominently in generative accounts of language change, though in a
rather dierent way. In the following we will explore the main dierences
between functional and generative approaches to grammaticalization (see also
discussions in Abraham 1993; Newmeyer 1998 and Haspelmath 1998).
3.1 Formal approaches to grammaticalization
The concept of grammaticalization as outlined above (Sections 2.1 and 2.2) is
not easily compatible with formal models of language. Following Saussure, the
proponents of generative grammar believe in the strict separation of synchrony
and diachrony. Even in their diachronic studies the focus is not on language
output and the processes of language change, but rather on the description of the
synchronic states produced by speakers competence before and after a change
has occurred. Furthermore, due to the assumption that language in general and
syntax in particular are organized in a modular and autonomous way, generative
studies are only dealing with syntactic change from a strictly (morpho)-syntactic
perspective and they do not take into account the semantic-pragmatic mecha-
nisms that underlie such changes (see below, Section 4). Also, the goal of
generative analysis is to nd the most appropriate (= maximally constrained)
description of the change in terms of the theory of grammar. In other words, an
explanation in generative terms means to nd a (possibly) universally valid
description (which means, in fact, an explanation valid within the current model),
which can adequately account for speakers internal knowledge of language; it
does not attempt to nd underlying motivations, which allow the change to occur
in the rst place. The tool for this description is provided by the theoretical
framework of generative grammar which has undergone several changes in
recent years (from Transformational Grammar to Extended Standard Theory,
X-Bar Syntax, Principles and Parameters, Government & Binding to Minimal-
ism) , which explicitly sets out what should, and should not, be possible in
language. In this respect, generative grammar is a strong theory, allowing for
strong predictions which can be potentially falsied.
Thus, while at rst sight the concept of grammaticalization seems to be not
applicable to generative accounts of language, it is not altogether incompatible
with them. It can be said that, strictly speaking, diachronic generative studies
only deal with a particular facet of grammaticalization, i.e. the restructuring of
the grammatical system by means of re-analysis (cf. Abraham 1993; Haspelmath
1998 and Newmeyer 1998: 292), which is generally seen as one of the main
mechanisms of grammaticalization (cf. Hopper and Traugott 1993: 32, but see
Haspelmath 1998 for an argument that grammaticalization and re-analysis are
two distinct concepts). It seems also clear why this should be so: in so far as re-
analysis is involved in grammaticalization, it usually (but not necessarily, cf.
below, Section 4.4) only takes place when the process has already been set in
motion through semantic-pragmatic factors and has reached momentum at the
morphosyntactic level. It is only at this point that generative analysis starts at all.
Re-analysis within the generative paradigm is generally accounted for by
assigning a structural description both to the old construction and to the new, re-
analysed structure, using the principles and constraints of the theory as an
explanatory tool. In this account, only discrete word-class categories are
allowed; gradience of word-class membership (see Haspelmath 1998: 330) is not
possible. For this reason, generative studies cannot account for the gradual
aspects of grammaticalization processes, but can only capture abrupt, categorical
changes. Haspelmath (1998: 330) even argues that thinking in discrete terms
where the phenomena are gradient means that clear instances of grammatical-
ization are erroneously attributed to reanalysis because grossly oversimplied
tree diagrams do not reect the gradualness of the change. Generative
models of change also have severe diculty in dealing with the availability of
two structures at one and the same time (as in synchronic variation, or, layering
phenomena). Can one speaker have access to both the old and the new structure?
For a positive conclusion, see Abraham (1993: 2122), who also refers to Pintzuk
(1991) and the possibility that speakers may have access to more than one
grammar simultaneously (the so-called double-base hypothesis); for a negative
one, see Haspelmath (1998: 341). Language change according to the generative
model takes place between successive generations during the process of language
acquisition and is manifested either in a change in the structural conguration, a
change in movement operations, or in the evolution of or change in functional
categories (see also below). Representative for early diachronic generative studies
on syntactic re-analysis is the work by Lightfoot (1979) on catastrophic change
within the English modal auxiliaries.
1
INTRODUCTION 11
Recently, with the introduction of functional categories in generative
grammar, another kind of reasoning has been introduced into generative accounts
of grammaticalization. Elements from functional categories, such as determiners,
complementizers or AGR, are taken to serve as heads of constructions (= DP,
CP, AGR-P, etc.). Diachronically, functional heads are assumed to evolve out of
lexical elements/heads, and it is in this respect that diachronic generative studies
can capture grammaticalization phenomena (see e.g. Roberts 1993).
2
Only one paper in this volume, by van Gelderen, deals with what could be
called grammaticalization phenomena in a generative way. Even though van
Gelderen herself does not refer to the term grammaticalization, it could be said
that van Gelderens study here, on Old English verb morphology, deals with a
nal stage of a grammaticalization process in that the Old English verbal endings
are disappearing and are being replaced (this could become a new cycle of
grammaticalization, functionally linked to the earlier one) by personal pronouns
and possibly also by a word order becoming more strict (which in itself can be
part of a grammaticalization process). Van Gelderen shows that the verbs rst
reduce their verbal endings when they move to a functional category, such as
complementizer position. This is of interest because Abraham (1993) points out
that grammaticalization might be captured in formal, generative terms by
showing that originally lexically lled nodes (in this case the inexional
morphemes on the verb) may be replaced by functional nodes (here the move-
ment to a functional position). Van Gelderen also indicates that there is a relation
between pro-drop (the absence of overt pronouns) and the preservation of verbal
endings. This might show a link between the beginning of a new cycle the
use of pronouns to show the function of person, case and number and the
disappearance of the old cycle, in which such features were shown morphologi-
cally attached to the verb. Van Gelderen herself does not present the evidence in
terms of grammaticalization processes, because she is interested in the conse-
quences this case may have for the theory of grammar. Concentrating on
grammar change, she ignores what happens in terms of language change (see
also 4.3), which is the level on which grammaticalization works (see also note
1). This study, therefore, shows very nicely how dierent the objectives are of
the generative approach as compared to functional approaches to language
change, but it also shows that this dierent way of looking at the data in
question, may unearth further causal factors involved in grammaticalization,
which are of a more strictly grammatical nature (see also Fischer, and, somewhat
more indirectly, Fitzmaurice, this volume).
3.2 Functional approaches to grammaticalization
There are a number of fundamental dierences between formal and functional
models of language in general, which are reected in the respective approaches
to grammaticalization. Although several theoretical frameworks exist for func-
tionalist approaches (e.g. Functional Grammar or Cognitive Grammar), these
dier from generative theory by being not that easily falsiable. The conception
of language is holistic and relatively unconstrained; conceptual, pragmatic and
language-external factors are believed to have more direct inuence on grammat-
ical structure. On the other hand, not being bound to a restrictive, autonomous
theory of grammar has the striking advantage of being able to explore how
semantic, pragmatic and grammatical factors impinge on one another. Since
grammatical elements are not taken as necessarily discrete members of a
category but seen rather as more or less prototypical instances of such a catego-
ry, gradualness can be better accounted for. Diachrony, likewise, is not seen as
a succession of discrete synchronic stages, but rather as being inherent in
synchrony. In contrast to generative studies, which emphasize mainly the
situation before and after grammaticalization, functional approaches may also
include aspects of the actuation and implementation of the process, and of the
motivations behind the process; in other words, they allow for an explanation in
a much wider sense (i.e. outside grammatical competence proper). The subject
matter of investigation within functionalist models is primarily the use of
language, and not the underlying system. Indeed, in the theory of Emergent
Grammar (cf. Hopper 1988 and his later work on this) there is no such thing as
a xed system of grammar at any time, grammar is constantly emerging from
language being used in discourse. Accordingly, the locus of language change is
primarily within language use, i.e. with adults and not children. In Table 1, the
basic dierences between functional and generative approaches to grammatical-
ization are summarized.
Today, we can today broadly distinguish between more diachronically- and
more synchronically-oriented functionalist and typological approaches (for a
similar distinction, see also Traugott 1996). Note, that there is a close interdepen-
dence between functionalism and language typology: while many functionalists
make use of cross-linguistic evidence (see for instance the work of Talmy Givn,
e.g. Givn 1979, 1984, 1995), many typologists work within a functional
framework, for instance in studies by Martin Haspelmath (e.g. Haspelmath 1990)
and Frans Plank (see e.g. the Konstanz project on the Universals Archive), and
very often typology and functionalism are not really separable at all.
In functional-diachronic approaches (e.g. Lehmann 1982 [1995]; Traugott
INTRODUCTION 13
and Heine 1991; Heine, Claudi and Hnnemeyer 1991) the focus lies on the
Table 1. Functional vs. formal approaches to grammaticalization: Basic dierences
Functional approaches Formal approaches
holistic conception of language and
grammar
consideration of conceptual, seman-
tic-pragmatic and language-external
factors
diachrony in synchrony
subject matter of investigation and
locus of change: (mainly) language
use
language change = gradual
grammaticalization as the full pro-
cess from lexical items to grammati-
cal words, including actuation, im-
plementation and motivation
description of the whole process
looking for explanations (inside and
outside grammar)
modular conception of language and
grammar ( autonomous subcomponents)
only grammar-internal factors
synchrony vs. diachrony
diachrony =comparison of synchronic
stages
subject matter of investigation: compe-
tence
locus of change: language acquisition
language change =abrupt
grammaticalization as re-analysis
grammaticalization as the evolution of
functional categories/heads out of lexical
categories/heads
only description of situation before and
after re-analysis
explanation only from the viewpoint of
the theory of grammar (e.g. category
shifts, changes within functional catego-
ries, etc.)
historical development of grammatical constructions, while the main aim of
linguists working within functional-synchronic models (e.g. Givn 1979; Hopper
and Thompson 1984) is to show the discourse-pragmatic basis of grammatical
structure. Positioned somewhere in between are studies on change in progress,
which focus on one particular aspect in the process of grammaticalization, i.e. the
fact that in periods of transition old and newly developed linguistic forms may
co-exist for some time (layering). Typology explores the concept of grammat-
icalization by accounting, diachronically, for the evolution of grammatical
elements and constructions in general (cf. e.g. Heine 1997; Bybee et al. 1994),
and, synchronically, by comparing how certain concepts (e.g. possession) and
categories (e.g. mood, tense, aspect) have become grammaticalized in a variety
of languages (e.g. Givn 1983; Kemmer 1993).
In Table 2, an attempt is made to give a short overview of and distinguish
systematically between the various approaches to grammaticalization that are
currently on the linguistic market. While typological and functional approaches
to grammaticalization, both from a synchronic and diachronic perspective, often
go hand in hand and are therefore not mutually exclusive, the most notable
contrast is, as has been outlined in this section, between functional models on the
one hand, and formal models on the other.
With the exception of van Gelderens contribution, who works within the
Table 2. Approaches to grammaticalization: Short overview
Perspective Approaches to grammaticalization
Typological Functional Formal
Synchronic cross-linguistic
patterns
discourse-pragmatic and
cognitive basis of grammar
not applicable
Change in
progress
synchronic variation
creoles
if, at all, only within the
double-base hypothesis
Diachronic evolution of gram-
mar in general
evolution of linguistic
forms, Emergent Grammar?
re-analysis
generative paradigm, most of the papers in the present volume come closest to
the functional-diachronic approach to grammaticalization, with the articles by
Fitzmaurice and Tagliamonte focusing on ongoing developments within Ameri-
can English and Saman English, respectively.
4. Mechanisms and/or causes of grammaticalization
4.1 Metaphor and metonymy
In the literature on grammaticalization it is generally accepted that the most
important semantic mechanisms at work in the process of grammaticalization are
metaphorical and metonymic in nature (cf. general studies such as Hopper and
Traugott [1993: 7787] and Diewald [1997: 4262]).
3
Besides these, Traugott and
Heine (1991: 7) also mention analogy and re-analysis, which are seen as related
to instances of metaphor and metonymy respectively, but then viewed from a
INTRODUCTION 15
structural rather than a semantic/pragmatic point of view. Hopper and Traugott
(1993: 87) sum it up as follows,
In summary, metonymic and metaphorical inferencing are complementary, not
mutually exclusive, processes at the pragmatic level that result from the dual
mechanisms of reanalysis linked with the cognitive process of metonymy, and
analogy linked with the cognitive process of metaphor. Being a widespread
process, broad cross-domain metaphorical analogizing is one of the contexts
within which grammaticalization operates, but many actual instances of
grammaticalization show that the more local, syntagmatic and structure
changing process of metonymy predominates in the early stages.
Since it is quite generally believed that grammaticalization is semantically (or
pragmatically) driven, it is not surprising that such essentially pragmatic/semantic
factors as metaphor and metonymy are seen as important. It remains to be seen,
however, whether the accompanying grammatical changes are a mere appendix
to the semantic change or whether they also play a(n) (more) independent role.
Here we will briey consider how these metaphorical and metonymic processes
work. We will also discuss in what respect analogy and re-analysis can be said
to be similar to metaphor and metonym respectively.
According to one school of thought, metaphor is said to play an important
part especially in the early stages of grammaticalization. Heine et al.
(1991a: 151.) show how only a limited number of basic cognitive structures
form the input to grammaticalization; they call these source-concepts. The fact
which makes them eligible is that they provide concrete reference points for
human orientation which evoke associations and are therefore exploited to
understand less concrete concepts (Heine et al. 1991a: 152). Thus the human
body and basic human activities (sit, stand, go, leave, do, make etc)
regularly provide source concepts in any language. For instance, in order to
express the abstract notion of space, back may be used to refer to the space
behind, and head to refer to space in front. In turn these notions of space may
come to be used to express the even more abstract notions of time. Similarly,
physical actions like grasp may be used to denote mental activities (cf. also the
similar etymology of verbs like comprehend, Dutch begrijpen, German fassen etc.).
Metaphorical change can be related to analogy. It is a type of paradigmatic
change, whereby a word-sign used for a particular object or concept comes to be
used for another concept because of some element that these two concepts have
in common. It is not surprising that, when this similarity is obvious, often the
same metaphorical transfers take place in otherwise totally unrelated languages.
Metaphors are of course also an important device in literary language, but there
the aspect of similarity is often much less obvious, creating the kind of tension
that poets need in order to show well-known objects or concepts in a fresh and
unexpected light. Heine et al. (1991b: 50, 60) indeed make a distinction between
the type of metaphor that occurs in literary language and in grammaticalization:
they call the latter experiental or emerging metaphors, because they are
metaphors that arise in context (i.e. they are metonymic in nature), while the
former are termed conceptual or creative metaphors, which are much more
likely to contain conceptual jumps and cannot be predicted in any sense.
Analogy used as a term in syntactic change is similar to metaphor in that
there, too, a form or construction used within a particular paradigm of similar
forms or constructions, may replace another one within the paradigm. A clear
example of this is the way in which the various noun plurals of Old English (i.e.
plural endings in -e, -u, -a, -an, or zero) were almost all replaced by the plural
sux -(e)s (from OE -as, the plural of the masculine strong noun), which had
the same function (i.e. the same grammatical meaning) as the disappearing forms
within the paradigm or category of number. Similarly, it can be said that in
example (2) above (involving to be going to), a metaphorical change has occurred
(cf. also Hopper and Traugott 1993: 88). The change from a concrete, directional
verb go into a verb referring to the future is semantically a case of metaphor.
The physical, bodily sense of go changes into an abstract temporal concept,
a path that is found to be typical in metaphorical change. Heine et al. (1991a: 157)
describe this path in a hierarchy (which could be linked to further hierarchies,
such as that of case and constituents, see ibid.: 160) as follows,
irsoN > onrc1 > iocrss > si:cr > 1ixr > qc:ii1x
Whether this metaphorical change is independent of the metonymic shift taking
place in to be going to (see below) is another question. Since the metaphor used
is of a contextual type (as indicated above), it may be dicult to draw a distinc-
tion, and metonymy may therefore well be the more crucial mechanism. This is
indeed the view of Hopper and Traugott (1993: 81), and also Bybee et al.
(1994: 289.). The latter distinguish ve mechanisms of semantic change that
play a role in grammaticalization; at least four of them are essentially metonymic
in nature, with metaphor playing only a subsidiary role.
Metonymy, like metaphor, is originally a term used in rhetoric but here it is
not similarity that causes the association but contiguity, in other words meto-
nymic transfer functions on the syntagmatic plain. So when we speak of the
press rather than newspapers, or The White House for the US presidency, we
use a sign that is indexically related to the substituted one. Both metaphorical
and metonymic transfer are cognitive processes, but with metonymy we choose
a term from the same eld, from the context, whereas with metaphor we
INTRODUCTION 17
substitute a similar cognitive element from a dierent eld or paradigm. What
typically happens in grammaticalization processes is what Hopper and Traugott
have called conversational implicatures (1993: 73) or pragmatic inferencing
(p. 75). Thus in the above example (2) with to be going to, the change from a
directional verb into a verb conveying future time was made possible by the fact
that the verb go in combination with a purposive innitive invites the inference
that the subject of go arrives at a later time at the destination, with the result
that the idea of a future plan becomes incorporated into the verb go (to) itself.
It is clear that the contiguity of the purposive innitive is essential for the
inferencing to happen.
Re-analysis,
4
which is a term used in syntactic change, is similar to
metonymy in that here too the change involves contiguous elements. Thus, the
syntactic re-analysis that takes place in the go to example in (2) involves a
rebracketing of constituents, from
[I
NPs
[am going]
VP
[to visit my aunt]
ADV ADJUNCT
]
into
[I
NPs
[am going to [visit my aunt]]
VP
]
In the case of go to, there seems to be a relation between the semantic
metonymic change and the structural re-analysis (from full verb into semi-
auxiliary) in that the metonymic shift (which may gradually involve more
contexts) can be said to prepare the way for the syntactic re-analysis, which
cannot be gradual. The structural change is a result, but it must be noted that this
is not a necessary result, as was already indicated in Section 3.1. It is highly
likely that the overall structure of the grammar plays a role here too, see further
Section 4.5.3 below.
4.2 Semantic bleaching
Grammaticalization is one type of macro change, consisting minimally of one
process of reanalysis, but frequently involving more than one reanalysis
Grammaticalization is often associated with semantic bleaching, and this
bleaching is the result of reanalysis or, perhaps better said, it is the essence
of the reanalysis itself (Harris and Campbell 1995: 92).
Harris and Campbell refer here to semantic bleaching, which they see as part
of the re-analysis itself. In their view, in other words, bleaching is a correlate of
the re-analysis, not something that may itself lead to re-analysis. There is also a
much more common view (cf. Bybee et al. 1994; Rubba 1994), which regards
bleaching as a prerequisite for grammaticalization or even a cause. Fischer
(1994), however, shows that bleaching does not necessarily steer the process of
grammaticalization. In the case of the grammaticalization of English have to, it
was not so much the bleaching of the earlier possessive sense of have that led to
the grammaticalization of the verb into an auxiliary, rather it was the change in
basic word order from Old English SOV to Middle English SVO, causing have
and the to-innitive to become adjacent in all types of clauses, that set o the
re-analysis into an auxiliary. Evidence for this scenario can be found in the fact
that the bleached forms of have had been oating around ever since the Old
English period for at least six hundred years without causing any further
grammaticalization. All other grammaticalization evidence apart from the
bleaching process such as the development of epistemic meaning, the use of
intransitive to-innitives, double use of have (as in I have to have ) occur only
after the word order change. A second type of evidence is the fact that in
German and Dutch, which also possessed a bleached form of the cognates of
have but where the basic word order remained SOV, the re-analysis did not take
place.
The French linguist Meillet attributes the process of grammaticalization to
the loss of expressivity (which is the same as bleaching) that occurs in lexical
items whenever they occur very frequently (Meillet 1912). The idea that the
process of grammaticalization may be caused by the loss of expressivity may
indeed explain the continuing cycle of grammaticalization processes, whereby
new expressions (Harris and Campbell [1995: 73] refer to these as exploratory
expressions, which always oat around in language but dont always necessarily
get grammaticalized) are constantly used to replace old ones due to a need of
speakers to be more expressive.
5
However, we must make a distinction between
bleaching of one expression that leads to the use of other, new ones (i.e.
bleaching at the end of a cline that causes a new cline with a new expression to
start), and bleaching within an expression itself (i.e. bleaching within one and the
same cline).
There is yet another view with respect to the role played by bleaching in
grammaticalization, which holds that bleaching occurs only during the last stages
of the grammaticalization process (cf. Traugott and Knig 1991: 190). Traugott
and Knig (and we should also include Sweetser 1990 here) believe that
grammaticalization in its early stages involves an increase in meaning, that is, in
pragmatic meaning (see also Section 2.2). We have seen that what happens in
the early stages of grammaticalization is that a term can come to be used in more
senses than one due to pragmatic inferencing; cf. example (2) above, where go
comes to indicate both concrete direction and temporal direction (future time).
Similarly, mente in (1) comes to be widened to indicate not only mind, but also
INTRODUCTION 19
manner. This can indeed be interpreted as enrichment of meaning because the
element now ts into a greater number of contexts. Enrichment of meaning
also takes place in that meanings that used to be in the extension of an expres-
sion move into its intension, i.e. a meaning is added inherently to the dening
properties of an expression and not created ad hoc in the context. As argued by
Traugott (1995), the process of grammaticalization often (though not necessarily)
involves a development towards greater subjectivity, i.e. the tendency of mean-
ings to become increasingly based in the speakers subjective attitude towards the
proposition. So, in the example of to be going to, the shift in meaning is not only
from concrete (lexical) movement to more abstract temporal movement but
also towards a more epistemic meaning in the sense that it expresses the
likelihood or intention from the point of view of the speaker. A similar develop-
ment from deontic to more epistemic can be observed for the English modal
auxiliaries, such as must and will (see also Traugott 1995); for further cases of
subjectication see the articles in Stein and Wright (1995), which has subject-
ication as its theme, and the studies by Adamson and Lenker in this volume.
Adamson shows on the basis of the historical development of lovely how,
synchronically, subjective meaning correlates with leftmost position within the
NP, and how, diachronically, the meaning change towards subjective meaning
goes hand in hand with leftward movement and eventually triggers the syntactic
re-analysis of lovely as an intensier.
6
She proposes the following grammatical-
ization pathway from adjectives to intensiers:
Descriptive adjective Aective adjective Intensier
referent-oriented speaker-oriented (subjective) increasingly subjective
2nd position
within NP

leftmost position
within NP

leftmost position
syntactic re-analysis
4.3 The principle of unidirectionality
Grammaticalization is generally seen as a gradual diachronic process which is
characterized as unidirectional, i.e. it always shows the evolution of substance
from the more specic to the more general and abstract (Bybee et al. 1994: 13).
Unidirectionality is said to apply on all levels, the semantic (fully referential >
bleached/grammatical meaning; less subjective > more subjective), the syntactic
(lexical > grammatical; less bound > more bound) and the phonological (full
phonological form > reduced phonological form). Unidirectionality is most strongly
defended in Haspelmath (1999), who indeed suggests that it is exceptionless.
The emphasis on unidirectionality and on the graduality of the process has
led to the idea that the process is mechanistic, that grammaticalization itself is a
mechanism or cause for change. Bybee et al. (1994: 298), for instance, write:
Thus our view of grammaticalization is much more mechanistic than function-
al: the relation between grammar and function is indirect and mediated by
diachronic process. The processes that lead to grammaticalization occur in
language use for their own sakes; it just happens that their cumulative eect
is the development of grammar (emphasis added).
It is not at all clear from the literature we have studied what the status of
grammaticalization is in theorizing on change. Vincent (1995: 434) for instance
writes, even though he is challenging the pre-eminence [of grammaticalization]
as [a] source of new patterns, that he does not wish [] to deny the power of
grammaticalization as an agent of change (emphasis added), which seems at
least to suggest that he thinks it has explanatory value, that it has independent
force. Most students of grammaticalization describe it as a phenomenon, a
process, an evolution. However, the fact that for most linguists one of its
intrinsic properties is that is is gradual and unidirectional suggests to us that in
their view the process must have some independence and that it can be used as an
explanatory parameter (cf. Heine et al. 1991b: 9, 11) in historical linguistics.
7
Roger Lass, in this volume, addresses this very problem. He doubts the
validity of the hypothesis of unidirectionality, and questions the way in which it
is justied. First, as Lass points out, the criteria for determining the various
stages of grammaticalization must be formulated in a clear-cut and explicit way.
Lass suggests that we may have preconceived ideas about what lexical and
grammatical is: our denition of lexicality and grammaticality is more than
likely based on some well-investigated languages only, such as English, German
or French, and may therefore not function as cross-linguistically valid instru-
ments of description.
Second, there is the question of how to deal with possible counter-examples.
This is one of the central question raised by Lass and shortly summarized by us
in Figure 1 below. According to Lass, if grammaticalization theory aims at being
a strong theory, it needs to set out what possible counter-examples should look
like. Lass position is, we take it, in accordance with the optimal procedure set
out for scientic investigation in the sense of Popper (1968). A hypothesis
although it should be formulated in a strong way is nonetheless always a
INTRODUCTION 21
working hypothesis and not a dogma. Given this, the role of counter-examples is
grammaticalization theory
as a strong theory as a weak theory
allows for explicit predictions
as to possible falsification
inductive generalizations only;
mere observation
counter-examples
count and help in
modifying the theory
counter-examples
are explained away
no search for counter-examples;
only positive data
Figure 1. The role of counter-examples within a theory of grammaticalization
to modify the hypothesis in such a way that it can also account for these hitherto
unpredicted cases. Another possibility to deal with counter-examples, though, is
to simply disregard them, or, in Lass terminology, to massage them, be it as
cases of lexicalization or by simply ignoring them or explaining them away
otherwise (as does Haspelmath 1999). A further question is how to nd possible
counter-examples of grammaticalization? In the Popperian sense of scientic
research we should always look for counter-examples and not for cases which
conform to our hypotheses. As argued by Lass, this procedure does not seem to
apply to grammaticalization research. Here the bulk of research is concerned with
nding and reporting prototypical instances of grammaticalization, which, of
course, also helps sharpen our understanding of the processes involved. It should,
however, not mislead us into thinking that cases of degrammaticalization do not
exist. Also, Lass argues, even if there is striking evidence in favour of our theory
(in the weak sense), we should not confound commonness with absolute truths.
Another central problem that Lass addresses is the fact that a strong
unidirectional position predicts that all grammatical elements are lexical in origin.
Given reconstruction from a uniformitarian perspective, this would predict that
there should have been a time when all languages were isolating, i.e. having only
lexical and no grammatical material. Lass argues that no such languages are
attested, and that therefore such a position is untenable because counter-uniform-
itarian. If we do not take for granted that the languages of the past looked like
todays languages, how can we, Lass argument goes, possibly believe that the
principles underlying language change (such as unidirectionality) were the same?
At this point, however, a word of caution may be in order: It may well be that
Lass is using uniformitarianism in two dierent ways. As recently Deutscher
(1999) has pointed out, the original application of uniformitarianism is to
diachronic processes only, and not to synchronic states. This, at least, Deutscher
argues, is how the notion of uniformitarianism as a methodological tool was
originally developed in the natural sciences and from there transferred to
linguistics. So, we can only assume that the processes operating in the past were
the same (= diachronic uniformitarianism, in Deutschers terms), but it would
be wrong to stretch uniformitarianism so as to include the similarity of the
languages themselves (= synchronic uniformitarianism, in Deutschers terms).
In other words, the fact that we do not have fully isolated languages now, cannot
be used to dismiss the principle of unidirectionality.
According to Lass, we also need to keep the grammaticalization clines and
the question of directionality logically apart. As Lass points out, the stages within
the clines are causally and ontologically independent of each other: Information
loss processes have no memory. This is a question also addressed by Fischer in
this volume, who concurs with Lightfoot and others that there is no such thing
as diachronic grammars. This point links further to the question of where the
locus of change is supposed to be, in language i.e. on the performance level, or
in grammar, the abstract system present within each individual speaker? We
have argued above (end of Section 3.1) that both must be taken into account to
arrive at a full(er) explanation of the phenomenon of grammaticalization.
If unidirectionality were indeed a principle of language change, the
question remains what could possibly motivate it. If a possible explanation turns
out to be non-linguistic in nature (e.g. positive feedback as a physico-mathemati-
cal principle), then unidirectionality is not a principle of language, i.e. it is not
domain-specic, but a general principle. Also, Lass says, the explanation may simply
be trivial in the sense that it is highly unlikely to extract anything out of zero.
8
Given the importance of the study of counter-examples as advocated by
Lass, the studies by Fischer and Fitzmaurice in this volume are especially
welcoming for grammaticalization theory. They both set out to explore possible
cases of degrammaticalization. Although the development of innitival to in
English cannot be regarded as a case of degrammaticalization back along the
macro-level of the cline grammatical > lexical to does not change its
grammatical status as an innitival marker on a micro-level Fischer shows
how the semantic meaning of to moves back to its original semantic meaning of
goal or direction, and shows no further phonetic reduction, reduction in scope or
increase in bondedness.
9
Closely related to Fischers paper is the study presented
by Fitzmaurice, which looks at innitival to from a more synchronic perspective,
INTRODUCTION 23
focusing on the negative split innitive (to not nd out) and how it interacts with
the grammaticalization of the English semi-auxiliaries (such as have to, want to,
be going to). The fact that to within the semi-auxiliaries becomes less bonded
with the following VP complement and is therefore indicative of the further
degrammaticalization of innitival to is also mentioned by Fischer. Another
indicator for the ongoing degrammaticalization of innitival to, according to
Fitzmaurice is the increasing conventionalization of the negative split innitive
(at least in American English). In the negative split innitive (to not decide), to
not only becomes more detached from the verb, but, according to Fitzmaurice,
it also loses its grammatical meaning as an innitive marker, acquiring a new
pragmatic-purposive meaning. Another example for a special case of degrammat-
icalization, i.e. desubjectication, is pointed out by Adamson (this volume) in the
nal part of her paper, where she in general draws on the link between word
order and subjectivity within the NP. She suggests that there is a pathway from
cn::c1rizr (e.g. a criminal tyrant) to ci:ssirir (e.g. criminal law), in
which the latter stage is less subjective.
4.4 Formal diagnostics of grammaticalization
In grammaticalization theory a number of principles or parameters have been
distinguished that serve to characterize the process. The clearest discussion of
this is to be found in Lehmann (1982 [1995]), whose parameters can be used
to represent stages in the development. Hopper (1991) presents a number of
further generalizations (principles) that can be made regarding the process. Most
of these can be subsumed under Lehmanns parameters. Others, such as diver-
gence and layering, have been mentioned above (see Section 2.1). A nal
principle mentioned by Hopper, persistence, points to the fact that traces of the
original lexical meaning of the linguistic elements that are grammaticalized,
adhere to these elements and that they may be reected in the way the gramma-
ticalized forms are grammatically constrained. A clear example of persistence is
the present-day English auxiliary will, beside the future auxiliary meaning, the
old volitional meaning of will lives on, as in, If you will something to happen, you
usually succeed. Fischer (this volume) shows how persistence may partly
explain the divergent route that the innitival marker to takes in English,
compared to its cognates in German and Dutch. Another example of persistence
is given by Adamson in this volume, who shows that, today, lovely is poly-
semous in that beside its now prototypical function as an aective adjective or
intensier, it can also still be used as a descriptive adjective (though the dier-
ent uses correlate with dierent word order). For Adamson, this synchronic
situation reects the historical development of lovely from a descriptive to an
aective adjective and an intensier (see also Section 4.2).
Lehmann (1982: 306) presents the following overview (cf. Table 3, slightly
adapted in order to indicate the processes taking place).
The weight or substance of a lexical item involved in a grammaticalization
Table 3. Diachronic stages in the process of grammaticalization
Parameters Paradigmatic processes Syntagmatic processes
Weight
Cohesion
Variability
(loss of) integrity
(increase in) paradigmaticity
(loss of) paradigmatic variability:
increase in oligatoriness
(reduction of) scope
(increase in) bondedness
(decrease in) syntagmatic variability
process is reduced (in contrast to similar, but non-grammaticalized items within
the same eld or paradigm) through both semantic and phonetic erosion. This
means that the element becomes syntactically less dominant in the clause, e.g. a
full lexical verb such as go in example (2) above dominates the purposive
adjunct, whereas the semi-auxiliary go has become part of the VP headed by the
innitive. Similarly, in (1), mente could at rst have two coordinated adjectives
in its scope (as shown in stage b.iii), but at stage c it needs to be repeated,
indicating that its scope has been reduced to the immediately preceding element;
it has in fact become a bound morpheme.
Concerning cohesion, the more grammaticalized a linguistic element is, the
less choice there is formally, i.e. within the paradigm of forms that have a
similar function. Thus, in the expression of a thematic role, a case ending is
more paradigmatized than a preposition because usually only one choice exists
within the paradigm of case-forms, whereas often more than one preposition can
be used to express the same function. Syntagmatically, cohesion is increased in
that the grammaticalized item fuses with other linguistic elements, e.g. mente in
example (1) becomes a sux.
Paradigmatic variability (in the third row in Table 3) refers to the degree in
which a particular linguistic element is obligatory within the clause. Thus, the
past tense marker in English is a highly grammaticalized element because it
occurs obligatorily within the clause, whereas adverbial markers of time can
occur much more freely, their presence being determined not by the grammar but
by discourse. Syntagmatically, a grammaticalized element becomes less variable
because it takes up a xed position in the clause. For example, the tense-marker
INTRODUCTION 25
must follow the matrix verb, while the adverbial marker of time can occur in
quite a number of positions within the clause.
Thus, the parameters in Table 3 indicate the degree to which a particular
linguistic item has grammaticalized. It must be noted, however, that these
parameters only hold true for the historical or traditional type of grammatical-
ization, mentioned in Section 2.1. As Wischer indicates in this volume, the
discourse-pragmatic type (mentioned in Section 2.2) diverges from these
parameters on almost all levels (it undergoes pragmatic enrichment rather than
bleaching, increase in scope rather than decrease, there is no obligatorication
etc.), showing that it is indeed a dierent type of grammaticalization. Also,
Tabor and Traugott (1998) have recently pointed out that one of Lehmanns
parameters, i.e. the reduction of scope, may not be a well-dened and proper
diagnostic for grammaticalization. They argue that within a denition of
c-command there is rather an increase in scope.
Although Ldtkes (1980) cyclical theory of language change does not
explicitly refer to grammaticalization, it nonetheless links well to the concept.
However, where Lehmanns parameters combine semantic and formal factors in
the sense that they occur more or less simultaneously, in Ldtkes theory
semantic change follows formal change. The basic assumption underlying
Ldtkes hypothesis is that there is a dualism between sound change and
semantic-syntactic change, between reduction and compensation by enrichment.
Language change is seen as driven by redundancy management (Redundanz-
steuerung) on the side of both the speaker and the hearer. What sets o
language change is phonetic reduction. Too much reduction, however, endangers
comprehension for the hearer and therefore needs to be compensated by new lexical
material, which then may lead to semantic-syntactic change. This new lexical
material will eventually fuse with neighbouring units and become reduced again
(since speakers are striving for ease of production), and so the cycle starts again.
sound change (reduction) lexical enrichment semantic-syntactic change
4.5 Other factors involved
4.5.1 Language contact
Another factor that has been mentioned is the use of grammatical material from
substrate languages, see for this Traugott and Heine (1991: 7) and more particu-
larly for an in-depth study of this phenomenon, Bruyn (1995). Bruyn (1995)
shows that the grammatical processes that take place when a pidgin developes
into a creole are often not so much the result of internal developments in the
creole (i.e. independent lexical items becoming part of the morphology), as has
often been assumed, but that new morphological markers often appear ready-
made, taken from the substrate languages, which explains perhaps more ade-
quately why the grammaticalization in these cases may take place so fast.
McColl Millar (in this volume) believes that language contact played an impor-
tant role in the grammaticalization of the denite article in English. He argues
that simply following the typological path that has been suggested for this
development, from deictic particle to denite article and further to axal article,
does not explain why languages that started out from the same point, end up in
dierent positions on this cline. Why is Danish typologically most advanced,
why is English more in the middle and German still almost at the beginning? He
explains the dierences between the three languages by showing that the circum-
stances were dierent. They all share the decline of inexions but the dierence
is that in late Old English there developed a semantic gap due to the specializa-
tion in meaning of that, and that this coincided with a time of intensive contact
with speakers of Old Norse, who already had a system with separate forms for
the article and the distal determiner. This contact, he argues, facilitated the
introduction of this system into Old English, using, however, Old English forms.
In contrast, Tagliamonte, in this volume, shows that the developments that took
place in the expression of the in Saman English, was not
inuenced by the Hispanic context in which this variety of English evolved.
4.5.2 Frequency
Yet another factor that plays a crucial role in grammaticalization is frequency.
We need to distinguish, however, between frequency as a factor and frequency
as an indicator of change. As a factor, frequency matters in that elements eligible
for source-concepts are by their very nature frequent, otherwise they would not
be source concepts in the rst place. It must also be clear that for pragmatic or
conversational implicatures to change into conventional implicatures (i.e. for
pragmatic inferences to become part of the semantics of a construction), the
construction to which they apply must be used frequently. Note, however, that
INTRODUCTION 27
frequency very often is not a necessary precondition for change to occur, but
rather a mere consequence of a change, in the sense that a change paves the way
for constructions to occur more frequently. For example, if a lexical, open-class
item turns into a functional, closed-class item, it is quite obvious that it should
be used more often. Functional elements are by denition more frequent than
lexical items. In this respect, frequency arguments can be used as an indication
of ongoing change and may be used as a diagnostics for the state of the gram-
maticalization process. This is indeed the approach taken by Adamson (this
volume), who shows how the semantic shift towards more subjective meaning in
the case of lovely and its subsequent re-analysis as an intensier (see also
Section 4.2) leads to more frequent use; that is, increasing frequency follows the
change, and does not trigger it in the rst place.
10
Frequency comes also into
play when postulating universals or general laws. In this line of argumentation,
the fact that certain developments are frequent is taken as a proof that they are
universally valid. As pointed out by Lass (this volume), the generally observed
tendency that grammaticalization processes proceed from lexical to grammatical
elements may be simply due to the fact that they are statistically commoner, so
metaphorically preferred (see also Section 4.3).
4.5.3 The current state of the grammar
A factor that has been given much less attention, but which is emphasized by
Mithun (1991) (and see also Fischer 1997), is the importance of the shape of the
current grammar: the formation of new grammatical categories is motivated or
hindered by the contours of the existing grammatical system (Mithun
1991: 160). This particular point may call into question some of the tenets of
grammaticalization theory that have been proposed, such as the belief that
grammaticalization processes can be triggered by semantic factors only or the
hypothesis of unidirectionality (see also Section 4.3). For instance, in the
grammaticalization of to be going to, it is possible that the fact that there was a
structural Aux position available in English had a positive eect on the
rebracketing that has taken place. In addition the semantic and structural function
of to (see Fischer, this volume), and the fact that go and the innitive are
always adjacent in English, may have played a role, and may indeed explain why
this particular verb grammaticalized further in English than for instance in Dutch
or German. Fischer, this volume, shows in this respect that the grammaticali-
zation of the innitival marker in English diverged from the process that the
cognate markers underwent in German and Dutch, because the grammatical
circumstances in the latter two languages were considerably dierent. Also,
Demskes (forthcoming) work on the German NP demonstrates nicely that
changes can be better accounted for if constructions are not seen in isolation but
studied in relation to other constructions within the same structural domain (NP).
In particular, Demske argues that in German individual changes within the NP
(such as changes in adjective inection, the use of the denite article, the re-
analysis of possessive constructions, and an increasing productivity in nominal
compounding) may all be captured by a single change, i.e. a change in the relation
between article and NP.
4.5.4 The role played by iconicity
11
The concept of iconicity has a long-standing tradition within functional argumen-
tation (see e.g. Haiman 1985a and b; Bybee 1985). The basic idea of iconicity is
that the relation between the linguistic sign and the linguistic expression it stands
for can be motivated, thereby attacking one of the most basic tenets of structural-
ism, i.e. the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign.
12
The perspective on iconicity can
be both synchronic and diachronic. Synchronic studies are basically interested in
showing that there is a relation between form and meaning or function. Dia-
chronically, the task is to show which role if any iconicity plays in
language change in general and in the evolution of grammatical forms in
particular, and this is where grammaticalization comes into play. McMahon
(1994: 6.3.5) addresses this question, suggesting that iconicity and grammatical-
ization take place at dierent stages, using Bybees (1985) work on the ordering
of verbal inections as an example. At a rst stage, iconicity ensures that those
verbal categories that are conceptually closest to the verb will also occur closest
to the verb (according to the iconic principle of conceptual distance, cf. also
Haiman 1983: 782). It is only at a second stage that grammaticalization becomes
important ensuring subsequent fusion of the inections. So, while iconicity
motivates/initiates the evolution of the form and the order of morphemes,
grammaticalization will take over, turning the input structure into more and more
grammatical elements in the sense of Lehmanns (1982) diagnostics as intro-
duced in Section 4.4 above.
Another way in which iconicity plays a role in grammaticalization is when
a grammatical element that is coming, or has come, to the end of its cline (i.e.
when it has become phonologically much reduced), is replaced by a new
expression, thus starting a new grammatical cycle. These replacements are
generally again iconic (or transparent) with respect to the grammatical function
for which they come to be used. For example, in the earliest uses of mente in
example (1) above, the choice of mente is motivated by the meaning of the noun
mente in other contexts, which means that the word does not need to be learned
or stored separately. In the nal stage (stage c in [1]), however, mente is no
INTRODUCTION 29
longer motivated by the noun mind (indeed in modern French the noun mente
has disappeared). It has become a meaningless grammatical attribute that needs
to be learned separately. The development of the English s-genitive is another
example of how iconicity becomes important when a new cycle starts. Although
the s-genitive has not become reduced to zero (though actually in early Modern
English, particularly in northern dialects, it used to be increasingly s-less, as in
his father boots), it had almost fallen out of use as a productive inection in
Middle English. From late Middle English onwards, however, the s-genitive
begins to change from an inection into a clitic (cf. Allen 1997b). Note, that in
this respect we may equally well speak of a genuine case of degrammatical-
ization (inection > clitic) rather than the beginning of a new cycle. This change
correlates with a highly signicant increase in the frequency of the s-genitive
(see Rosenbach and Vezzosi forthcoming, 1999). As argued by Rosenbach
(forthcoming) the preferred contexts for the use and diachronic spread of the
s-genitive point to an iconic motivation for the use and increase of the
s-genitive, in that, for reasons of ecient language processing, the s-genitive
makes it possible for easily accessible possessors, ie. animate and topical
possessors, to occur early in the linear order of a possessive construction (note,
that in the alternative of-genitive the possessor follows the possessum). Also, the
s-genitive represents the more implicit structure to encode close possessive
relationships, which is in accordance with the principle of conceptual distance
proposed by Haiman (1985: 2.2). This originally strong iconic motivation for
the use of the s-genitive seems now to be about to fade. As further shown in
Rosenbach (forthcoming), in Modern English the s-genitive, while still gaining
ground, is doing so increasingly in non-iconic contexts, particularly with
inanimate possessors, thus showing traces of routinization.
In both respects, iconicity is closely linked to grammaticalization, and they
can be said to occupy two dierent poles (i.e. an iconic and a symbolic pole
respectively) on the axis along which language moves (cf. Plank 1979). The
iconic pole stands for creativity and expressivity on the side of the speaker, while
the symbolic pole represents the arbitrary and conventional elements of language:
through frequent use, originally motivated expressions lose much of their iconic
content and gain routine, thereby becoming more economic in terms of process-
ing costs. This may suggest that iconicity and grammaticalization are simply each
others opposites, and that the pathway is usually from the iconic pole to the
symbolic one. Things are not as simple as that, however, as we have tried to
illustrate in Figure 2. The opposition is not only between iconic on the one side
and symbolic/economic on the other, opposition can also turn up between dier-
ent, competing iconic motivations (see e.g. Haiman 1985a: ch.6; DuBois 1985).
For example, the principle of placing old information before new information
iconic motivation economic motivation
iconic
principle 1
iconic
principle 2
expressivity and
creativity (for speaker)
not grammaticalized
processing speed,
need for clarity (for hearer)
grammaticalized ?
Figure 2. Iconicity and grammaticalization: Competing forces
within an utterance can clash with the principle of actuality (Jespersen 1949: 54),
i.e. the tendency to express rst what is currently most important for the speaker
(which is most likely not old information; this is what Tabakowska [1999] has
termed experiental iconicity). In addition, what is often not taken into account
is that speakers and hearers may have dierent needs, which may well clash,
too. While the speaker is creative, the hearer may brood over this new expres-
sion, trying to gure out what it possibly means. On the other hand, expressions
that have already been symbolized to a great extent (i.e. are already near the end
of the grammaticalization cycle) may become opaque for the hearer (the speaker
always having the advantage that he/she knows what he/she wants to say) and
therefore uneconomic in certain situations. As Fischer (1999: 348), referring to
Fnagy (1982, 1995) has pointed out, we are always at the crossroads of both
possibilities, i.e. the iconic/creative and the symbolic/mechanistic pole. Even the
symbolic may become remotivated because, as Fnagy (1999: 3) argues, all
linguistic units are the product of a dual encoding procedure: when they are
generated by the grammar, they have to pass in live speech through a Distorter
(or Modier) conveying complementary messages, integrated into the original
linguistic message. This dual code consists of the arbitrary rules of grammar
on the one hand, and the transparent, motivated (by the external world) rules of
the Distorter.
For these reasons, the pathway is not necessarily from iconic to symbolic,
from less to more grammaticalized, but can potentially also be the other way
round (see also Section 4.3). A case in point is the development of innitival to
as shown by Fischer (this volume). In contrast to Dutch, where innitival te is
progressively moving towards the symbolic, i.e. the more grammaticalized pole,
the corresponding English to stopped in its grammaticalization process around
INTRODUCTION 31
late Middle English and moved back partly towards the iconic pole, in that to
became meaningful again in its grammatical function.
Molencki (this volume) shows how iconicity and grammaticalization may
intermingle in the most intricate ways. He looks at the expression of counterfact-
uality in the history of English and nds, not unexpectedly, that the verbal forms
used in the protasis and apodosis are being replaced again and again by more
expressive forms (the iconic pole) due to the fact that the earlier forms have
grammaticalized to (almost) zero. Thus, the Old English preterite subjunctive
might be replaced by the pluperfect or by a modal periphrasis. He also nds,
which is the actual topic of his paper, that there is a very strong tendency to
preserve parallelism between the verbal forms of the apodosis and protasis. When
the would-periphrasis rst occurs in the apodosis for transparent or iconic
reasons (presumably there rst, because 1) the earliest uses of would are
volitional, and volitionality only plays a role in the apodosis, and 2) because, of
the two clauses, the apodosis is the most counterfactual and may therefore be
selected for extra marking), it is soon followed by the use of would also in the
protasis. This is not only true for English but also for many other related and
unrelated languages. Molencki ascribes this further grammaticalized use of would
in the protasis (further grammaticalized because it is less motivated in the
protasis), to the iconic principle of isomorphism, i.e. the tendency for structures
with similar meaning to acquire similar forms (and vice versa).
Another case of intermingling can be uncovered in Fitzmaurices contribu-
tion to this volume. She shows (implicitly) how iconicity may counterbalance the
progress of the grammaticalization of the innitival marker in a number of semi-
auxiliaries in present-day American English. She shows that there is a strong
tendency to place the negator not between to and the innitive. This placement
conveys an impression of greater negative force, and could therefore be said
to be iconically motivated by the so-called distance principle (see Section 4.5.4
above): the closer the negative stands to the activity to be negated, the more
forceful the negator is (compare the opposite eect in negative raising con-
structions where the negative force is softened by the greater distance between
the negator and the verb). The eect of this not-placement is a further degram-
maticalization of to, Fitzmaurice argues, which is now no longer bonded to the
innitive: the investment of purpose force in to [is] a consequence of the
interruption of the innitive verb sequence by the negator (p. 178).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dieter Stein for valuable comments on an earlier version of this introduction.
Notes
1. In more recent work (1991), Lightfoot tries to incorporate aspects of graduality in his account
of language change (according to Harris and Campbell [1995: 2.3.2.2], this is not very
successful). In (1999), Lightfoot solves the problem of gradualism by pointing to two
dierent lenses through which we may view change: languages change gradually;
grammars are a dierent matter (p. 83). By concentrating on the purely grammatical and on
the individuals competence, and by following a strictly modular approach to grammar, it is
indeed possible to ignore the gradual aspects of change.
2. For discussions of Roberts generative account of grammaticalization see Newmeyer (1998:
5.7.2) and Haspelmath (1998: 341344).
3. Recently, Heine (1999c) has stressed the importance of the role of context played in grammat-
icalization processes. He distinguishes four developmental stages (initial stage bridging
context switch context conventionalization), in which dierent contextual requirements
are at work in the evolution of new grammatical meanings without making an appeal to
metaphor and metonymy. Heine explicitly states, however, that the contextual mechanisms he
proposes and an analysis of meaning transfer in terms of metaphor and metonymy are not
incompatible but rather complementary analytical tools in that an understanding of the various
kinds of contexts guring in grammaticalization will help to explain why new meanings evolve
out of certain existing meanings.
4. Note, that recently Haspelmath (1998) has made a case for treating grammaticalization and re-
analysis as distinct processes, with analogy being yet another type of change.
5. Note, that in contrast to Meillets view Ldtke (1980) sees phonetic reduction as the driving
force in language change. Only the loss of phonetic content will have eects on expressivity,
which will then trigger further semantic-syntactic change, see also Section 4.4 below.
6. Another example that seems to support the connection between leftward position within the NP
and subjective meaning may be the English s-genitive, which seems to have acquired a
personalization function (see Dabrowska 1998). Note, that the possessor within the s-genitive
is realized in left position, which may make this construction especially suitable to express
subjective meanings; see Rosenbach, Stein and Vezzosi (2000), who suggest that the English
s-genitive has, diachronically, acquired a textual function and may now be undergoing
subjectivization.
7. See also Newmeyer (1998: 5.3) for a discussion of the nature of grammaticalization as a
deterministic process with its own laws or as an epiphenomenon resulting from other processes.
He concludes that the latter is the case and he, therefore, argues that there is no need for a
separate theory of grammaticalization.
8. But see also Haspelmath (1998: 318322) and Haspelmath (1999) for an elaboration of possible
motivations for unidirectionality. In Haspelmath (1999), for example, unidirectionality is
accounted for in terms of Kellers (1990) invisible hand account.
9. Stein (forthcoming: Section 6) discusses how most cases of backward development seem to
INTRODUCTION 33
be cases where we have the re-evaluation of [a] varietal status of a particular form. What he
means is that instances of degrammaticalization seem to be linked to the re-activation of older
variant forms, with still fuller referential meaning, which have lain dormant for a while or have
survived in other dialects. Accordingly, some cases may look on the surface like cases of
degrammaticalization simply because of the fact that they become manifested in the standard
(written) language only. If the, supposedly, de-grammaticalized form is in fact an older
spoken or dialectal variant that simply manages to return into the standard, then this is not
degrammaticalization but rather backward divergence. In this light, it could be said that the
cases discussed by Fischer and Fitzmaurice should be called backward divergence rather than
degrammaticalization.
10. We owe this observation to Elizabeth Traugott (p.c.).
11. For a more detailed discussion on the role played by iconicity in grammaticalization we refer
to Fischer (1999).
12. For an overview of the various types of iconicity we refer to Fischer and Nnny 1999.
References
Abraham, W. 1993. Grammatikalisierung und Reanalyse: einander ausschlieende oder
ergnzende Begrie?. Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 726.
Allen, C. 1997a. Middle English and the creolization hypothesis. English Language
and Linguistics 1: 6389.
Allen, C. 1997b. The origins of the group genitive in English. Transactions of the
Philological Society 95: 111131.
Bruyn, A. 1995.Grammaticalization in Creoles: The Development of Determiners and
Relative Clauses in Sranan. Dordrecht: ICG Printing.
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense,
Aspect, Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Chafe, W. 1998. How a historical linguist and a native speaker understand a complex
morphology. In M. S. Schmid, J. R. Austin and D. Stein (eds). Historical Linguistics
1997. Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference on Historical Linguis-
tics, 101116. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Dabrowska, E. 1998. How metaphor aects grammatical coding: The Saxon genitive in
computer manuals. English Language and Linguistics 2: 121127.
Demske, U. Forthcoming. Merkmale und Relationen. Diachrone Studien zur Nominal-
phrase des Deutschen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Deutscher, G. 1999. The dierent faces of uniformitarianism. Paper delivered at the
XIVth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, August 1999, Vancouver.
Diewald, G. 1997. Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einfhrung in Sein und Werden gramma-
tischer Formen. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Domingue, N. Z. 1977. Middle English: Another creole?. Journal of Creole Studies
1: 89100.
DuBois, J. W. 1985. Competing Motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), 343365.
Fischer, O. 1994. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word
order. Neophilologus 78: 137164.
Fischer, O. 1997. On the status of grammaticalisation and the diachronic dimension in
explanation. Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 149187.
Fischer, O. 1999. On the role played by iconicity in grammaticalisation processes. In
M. Nnny and O. Fischer (eds), 345374.
Fischer, O. and Nnny, M. 1999. Introduction: Iconicity as a creative force in language
use. In M. Nnny and O. Fischer (eds), xv-xxxvi.
Fnagy, I. 1982. He is only joking (joke, metaphor and language development). In F.
Kiefer (ed.). Hungarian Linguistics, 31108. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fnagy, I. 1995. Iconicity of expressive syntactic transformations. In M. E. Landsberg
(ed.). Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes. The Human Dimension, 285304.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fnagy, I. 1999. Why iconicity?. In Nnny, M. and O. Fischer (eds), 336.
Gabelentz, G. von der. 1891. Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und
bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel Nachf.
Givn, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Givn, T. 1983. (ed.). Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Qualitative Cross-Language Study.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Givn, T. 1984. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Givn, T. 1990. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Grlach, M. 1990 [1986]. Middle English a creole?. In M. Grlach (ed.). Studies in
the History of the English Language [Anglistische Forschungen 210], 6578.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781819.
Haiman, J. 1985a. Natural Syntax. Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Haiman, J. (ed.). 1985b. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haspelmath, M. 1990. The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in
Language 14: 2572.
Haspelmath, M. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?. Studies in Language
22: 315351.
Haspelmath, M. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible?. Linguistics
37: 10431068.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hnnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual
Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heine, B. and Claudi, U. 1986. On the Rise of Grammatical Categories: Some Examples
from Maa. Berlin: Dieterich Reimer.
INTRODUCTION 35
Heine, B. and Reh, M. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages.
Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Heine, B. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, B. 1999a. Polysemy involving reexive and reciprocal markers in African
languages. In Z. Frajzyngier (ed.). Reciprocals: Forms and Functions. [Typological
Studies in Language 41], 129, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Heine, B. 1999b. Historical reconstruction: New evidence from African languages.
Paper presented at XIV ICHL, Vancouver, August 1999.
Heine, B. 1999c. On the role of context in grammaticalization. Paper given at the
international symposium on New Reections on Grammaticalization, held in
Potsdam, 1719 June 1999.
Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in
universal grammar. Language 60: 703752.
Hopper, P. J. 1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori Grammar postulate. In
D.Tannen (ed.). Linguistics in Context. Connecting Observation and Understanding,
117136, Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott and B.
Heine (eds), vol. I, 1735.
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jespersen, O. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Vol. vii.
London: Allen & Unwin.
Keller, R. 1990. Sprachwandel: Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tbingen:
Francke.
Kemmer, S. 1993. The Middle Voice: A Typological and Diachronic Study. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Lass, R. 1980. On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lehmann, Chr. 1982 [1995]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. A Programmatic Sketch.
[Arbeiten des Klner Universalien-Projekts 48]. Kln Universitt. Revised and
expanded version appeared in 1995 as Thoughts on Grammaticalization [LINCOM
Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 01]. Mnchen/Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
Lehmann, Chr. 1999. New reections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. Paper
given at the international symposium on New Reections on Grammaticalization,
held in Potsdam, 1719 June 1999.
Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge. Cambridge University
Press.
Lightfoot, D. 1991. How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lightfoot, D. 1999. The Development of Language. Acquisition, Change and Evolution.
Oxford: Blackwells.
Ldtke, H. 1980. Auf dem Wege zu einer Theorie des Sprachwandels. In H. Ldtke
(ed.). Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels, 182252. Berlin:
de Gruyter.
McMahon, A. M. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Meillet, A. 1912. Lvolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di Scienza)
12, no. 26, 6. (Reprinted 1951. In Linguistique historique et linguistique gnrale,
13048. Paris: C. Klingensieck.)
Mithun, M. 1991. The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories:
The grammaticization of subjects. In E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), vol. II,
159184.
Mithun, M. 1998. The sequencing of grammaticalization eects: A twist from North
America. In M. S. Schmid, J. R. Austin and D. Stein (eds). Historical Linguistics
1997. Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference on Historical Linguis-
tics, 291314. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nnny, M. and Fischer, O. (eds) 1999. Form Miming Meaning. Iconicity in Language and
Literature. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Pintzuk, S. 1991. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English
Word Order. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Pittsburg.
Plank, F. 1979. Ikonisierung und De-Ikonisierung als Prinzipien des Sprachwandels.
Sprachwissenschaft 4: 121158.
Popper, K. R. 1968. The Logic of Scientic Discovery. Revised and translated edition.
London: Hutchinson.
Ramat, P. 1982. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30: 549560.
Roberts, I. 1993. A formal account of grammaticalization in the history of Romance
futures. Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 219258.
Rosenbach, A. Forthcoming. The English s-genitive: Animacy, topicality and possessive
relationship in a diachronic perspective. In L. Brinton (ed.). Historical Linguistics
1999. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rosenbach, A. and Vezzosi, L. 1999. Was the s-genitive a traveller through England?.
In A. Bergs, M. S. Schmid and D. Stein (eds). LANA-Dsseldorf Working Papers on
Linguistics 1: 3555 (http://ang311.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/ang3/LANA/
LANA.html).
Rosenbach, A. and Vezzosi, L. Forthcoming. Genitive constructions in Early Modern
English: New evidence from a corpus analysis. In E. Poppe, A. Shisha-Halevy and
R. Sornicola (eds). Stability and Variation in Word-Order Patters over Time.
Rosenbach, A., Stein, D. and Vezzosi, L. 2000. On the history of the s-genitive. In R.
Bermdez-Otero, D. Denison, R. M. Hogg and C. B. McCully (eds). Generative
Theory and Corpus Study: A Dialogue from 10ICEHL, 183210. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
INTRODUCTION 37
Rubba, J. 1994. Grammaticalization as semantic change: A case study of preposition
development. In W. Pagliuca (ed.) Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 81102.
Stein, D. and Wright, S. (eds). 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stein, D. Forthcoming. Turning the clock back in English morphosyntax. They never
come back (quite the same),-? In I. Plag and K. P. Schneider. Festschrift in Honor
of Rdiger Zimmermann. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.
Sweetser, E. E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects
of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tabor, Wh. and Traugott, E. C. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammatical-
ization. In A. Giacalone Ramat and P. J. Hopper (eds), The Limits of Grammatical-
ization, 229272. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic
Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Traugott, E. C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some
semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In W. P. Lehmann and Y.
Malkiel (eds), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, 245271. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. 1995. Subjectication in grammaticalization. In D. Stein and S. Wright
(eds). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, 3154. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Traugott, E. C. 1996. Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In K. Brown and J. Miller
(eds), Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories, 181187. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. [Typolo-
gical Studies in Language 19], 2 vols. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Vincent, N. 1995. Exaptation and grammaticalization. In H. Andersen (ed.), Historical
Linguistics 1993, 433445. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
A lovely little example
Word order options and category shift
in the premodifying string
Sylvia Adamson
For Peter Matthews
1. Manner adverbs v. sentence adverbs
The sentences in (1) and (2) below illustrate a common pattern of alternation in
the grammar of modern English, in which (some) manner adverbs have a
separate function as sentence adverbs.
1
The two variants of such adverbs can be
distinguished by position and by meaning. In the canonical word order, as given
here, manner adverbs (such as 1a and 2a) occur in post-verb position, whereas
sentence adverbs (such as 1b and 2b) occupy clause-initial position, marked o
by intonation in speech or punctuation in writing.
2
The dierence in meaning is
commonly described as one of scope: manner adverbs are said to modify the
verb or verb phrase while sentence adverbs, as their name implies, include the
whole clause in their scope. The contrast is particularly clear in negative
sentences, where the manner adverb falls within the scope of the negative (as in
2a) but the corresponding sentence adverb does not (as in 2b).
(1) a. He will answer hopefully.
b. Hopefully, he will answer.
(2) a. He will not answer frankly.
b. Frankly, he will not answer.
Swan (1988) puts these synchronic options into a diachronic perspective,
revising, in the process, the standard account of both word order and scope. She
shows that, in the case of those dual-function items for which we have a
40 SYLVIA ADAMSON
sucient historical record, the manner-adverb function precedes the sentence-
adverb function and the development of the latter is associated with a leftward
movement into clause-initial position. The canonical position for sentence
adverbs in present-day English, illustrated in (1b) and (2b), thus has a special
status in the history of the form. As Swan puts it:
(3) [leftward movement] is an important and indeed essential factor in
the stabilization of the [sentence adverb] class Stable [sentence
adverbs] may occur anywhere in the sentence with little or no risk
of ambiguity, while less stable [members of the class] are more
restricted (Swan 1988: 8)
On the issue of meaning, she notes that sentence adverbs typically act as a
comment on the proposition or event encoded in the following clause and
suggests that if their meaning is to be described in terms of scope, then the
notion of scope has to be dened in terms other than those of syntactic modica-
tion: in a sense the speaker is part of the scope, since they are speaker-oriented
(Swan 1988: 5). This speaker-orientation is well illustrated in the examples
above: in (1b) hopefully expresses the speakers epistemic or emotional stance (=
I am hopeful that he will answer), in (2b) frankly could be analysed as a
manner adverb referring to the current speech act (= I tell you frankly that he
will not answer). By contrast, the manner adverbs in the (a) sentences are
descriptive rather than expressive or metalinguistic, referent-oriented rather than
speaker-oriented. Viewed in this light, the change of meaning involved in the
diachronic category shift that produces sentence adverbs is not so much an
enlargement of the syntactic domain that the adverb modies as an instance of
what is now known as subjectivisation.
3
2. Adverbials > discourse particles
A strikingly similar pattern emerges from recent studies of the grammatical-
isation of discourse markers (Finell 1996; Traugott 1995). The examples in (4)
below (all taken from the Helsinki Corpus) are used by Traugott to illustrate the
developmental cline from Clause-internal Adverbial > Sentence Adverbial >
Discourse Particle:
(4) a. al at ou hauest her bifore i-do, in ohut,
all that you have here before done, in thought,
in speche, and in dede ich e foryeue (c.1300)
in speech and in action I you forgive
CATEGORY SHIFT IN THE NOUN PHRASE 41
b. purposely suring the more noble children to vainquysshe
thoughe in dede the inferiour chyldren haue more lernyng
(1531)
c. thereby [the ea is] inabled to walk very securely both on the
skin and hair; and indeed this contrivance of the feet is very
curious for performing both these requisite motions (1665)
In (4a) in dede is a preposition phrase in which dede still carries its lexical
meaning as a noun =action. The phrase functions as a clause-internal adverbial
with narrow scope, the writer drawing a contrast between the dierent domains
in which sins are committed in thought, in word and in deed. In (4b) Sir
Thomas Elyots Machiavellian version of positive discrimination, in which
teachers are advised to organise contests in which nobly-born pupils out-perform
their more learned low-born class-mates the adverbial phrase has moved out
of the verb phrase into pre-subject position and its syntactic scope is wider,
comprising the whole clause, the inferiour chyldren haue more lernyng. Semanti-
cally, it is arguably ambiguous between a descriptive meaning close to that of
(4a), paraphraseable as in performance or in what they do, and a more
subjective meaning, approximating to an epistemic modal adverb such as
certainly or truly. In (4c) the ambiguity has pretty much been resolved: the
orthography (as is commonly the case after 1600) indicates that the preposition
and noun are being treated as a single item, whose main function seems to be
metalinguistic or metatextual. Indeed here acts as a signal that the following
clause conrms and amplies a previous statement (OED sense 3).
The development of indeed in (4) has obvious anities with the develop-
ment of frankly in (2). In both cases there is a change of syntactic category
accompanied by a semantic shift from referent-oriented meaning to speaker-
oriented meaning, or from descriptive function to metalinguistic function. And in
both cases the establishment of the item in its new function is associated with its
appearance in a left-peripheral position. Traugott, noting these similarities, looks
for a general explanation in Kiparskys account of the clause structure of
English, which incorporates a left-peripheral slot for topicalised elements
(additional to and preceding a Specier slot which hosts wh-phrases and focused
elements) (Traugott 1995: 910; Kiparsky 1995: 140147). See (5) below.
42 SYLVIA ADAMSON
(5)
CP
TOPIC CP
SPEC C
S Comp
While not disputing this analysis of events at clause level, I want here to explore
some data which suggests that the link between subjectivity and the left periph-
ery may be even more general. It is a case-study in which syntactic-semantic
change and leftward shift are again combined, but this time in the domain of the
noun phrase.
3. The order of adjectives
In fact, I shall primarily, and certainly initially, be concerned with one sub-
domain of the noun phrase, the slot occupied by pre-modifying adjectives. In
descriptive grammars of English this is commonly located between two other
prenominal elements:
4
(6) a. pre-adjectival modiers: e.g. all, next, four
b. adjectives: e.g. large, white, sti
c. post-adjectival modiers: e.g. leather, dog
As the nomenclature here implies, if items from dierent classes are combined
in a NP, the canonical order is a +b +c +N, as in four large leather collars.
However, that is not to say that there is free ordering within each class. Among
pre-adjectivals, the sequence four all [collars] is less acceptable than all four
[collars] and among post-adjectivals, dog leather [collars] is less acceptable than
leather dog [collars]. In the case of the adjectives proper, ordering seems in some
cases constrained and in others not. So fresh crisp [lettuce] and crisp fresh
[lettuce] seem equally acceptable, but most native speakers nd large green
[lettuce] clearly preferable to green large [lettuce]. Dixon (1982), perhaps the
most ambitious attempt to account for such patterns of preference, suggests that
they are grounded in the division of adjectives into seven semantic sub-classes,
as given in (7):
(7) 1. v:icr good, nice, excellent, horrible, delicious
2. bixrNsioN small, long, thin, large, wide
3. inxsic:i ioir1x crisp, hard, soft, heavy, smooth
4. sirrb fast, quick, slow
5. ncx:N ioirNsi1x gracious, kind, proud, generous
6. :cr new, young, old
7. coioc black, green, red
Adjectives from the same sub-class can be combined in any order, hence the
interchangeability of the paired inxsic:i ioir1x adjectives crisp fresh/fresh
crisp or the paired ncx:N ioirNsi1x adjectives brave clever/clever brave.
But when adjectives from dierent sub-classes are combined, there appears to
be a generally preferred left-to-right ordering, reected in the 17 numbering
given in (7). In (8) and (9), this ordering is observed in the (a) options and
violated in the (b) options:
(8) a. horrible jealous old man [1-5-6: v:i.-ni.-:cr]
b.
?
jealous old horrible man
(9) a. nice large soft green cushions [1-2-3-7: v:i.-bix.-ii.-coi]
b.
?
green soft nice large cushions
It is not that sequences such as green large or soft nice or old jealous cannot
occur but that they occur with marked intonation patterns, such as comma
disjuncture between the adjectives or contrastive stress on one of them. The
sequences in (8a) and (9a) represent what (7) predicts as the semantically
unmarked option.
Quirk et al., who note a similar pattern of ordering, suggest that in part the
preferences seem to correspond to the natural order of recursive qualication
(1972: 924). On this view, adjectival modication is a form of scope-restriction
in which the addition of adjectives progressively narrows down the class of
referents picked out by, say, cushions in (9a) or man in (8a). But the inverted
commas round natural in Quirk et al.s formulation avoids, rather than provides,
an explanation for the particular constraints on ordering that they have observed.
Dixon addresses this question by resurrecting and elaborating Whorfs notion of
iconicity. Whorf (1956: 93) had proposed a general principle whereby adjectives
encoding inherent properties of the referent are placed closer to the head noun
than those encoding non-inherent properties. In Dixons elaboration, (7) repre-
sents what is essentially a scale of inherence, in which properties of, for instance,
v:icr and bixrNsioN are taken to be less inherent than properties of :cr and
coioc. The question of ordering in adjectives is thus in his account divorced
44 SYLVIA ADAMSON
from the question of recursive qualication. In fact, Dixon explicitly contrasts
adjectives in this respect with other classes of premodiers. Whereas pre-
adjectival modiers do recursively restrict scope (hence the cleverest two men is
not synonymous with the two cleverest men), adjectives, he claims, are not
recursive. Rather, each directly qualies the head noun, so that a clever brave
man has similar cognitive meaning to a brave clever man (Dixon 1982: 25).
He recognises, however, one exception to this generalisation, namely the
class of adjectives: a adjective qualies not the head noun, but
some other adjective (ibid: 25). For example, a good fast car is not a car that is
both good and fast but a car that is good because it is fast. Hence the phrase a
good fast new car is not cognitively equivalent to a good new fast car (in the rst
case, the car is good by virtue of its speed, in the second by virtue of its
newness). Taking this claim a stage further, Dixon proposes that even if there is
no other adjective in the string (e.g. a good car; an atrocious play), the
adjective still does not qualify the head noun. Instead in a good box, good
eectively qualies some implicit non-value adjective, which itself qualies
box, the relevant adjective (e.g. strong, roomy) being supplied to the hearers
mind by the context (Dixon 1982: 26). He sums up his view:
(10) A value adjective cannot directly qualify a noun; if it appears in an
NP with a noun and no other adjective, then it has manner function
with respect to an implicit non-value adjective (Dixon 1982: 30)
I shall consider the general question of recursive qualication in the last section
of this paper. My more immediate concern is with two other issues raised by
(10). One is its implication of a category-shift in adjectives. The formula-
tion manner function seems to point to their kinship with adverbs, and
though this is not a suggestion pursued by Dixon himself, it proves particularly
illuminating when applied to the historical development of adjectives of this type,
as I shall argue in detail below. But rst I want to take issue with Dixons
account of the scope and meaning of such adjectives, in particular with his
cheerful positing of invisible syntactic entities for them to modify. What, after
all, is the evidence for the presence of an implicit non-value adjective in such
sequences as a good box or an atrocious play? A much simpler explanation for
the data Dixon reviews can be achieved by positing a semantic split within the
adjective group, such that adjectives in categories 27 are descriptive or referent-
oriented while adjectives in category 1 the class are aective or
speaker-oriented. Their function is not to describe properties in the referent but
to express speaker-response to it. So in using a phrase like a good box or a nice
book, Im telling you I approve and your knowledge of me then allows you to
infer what properties in the box or book are likely to have evoked that response.
In the case of a nice book, for instance, the approval may relate to properties of
genre, writing style, binding, illustrations and so on, depending on who occupies
the role of I. v:icr adjectives are thus subjective in the same sense as deictic
terms: their referential meaning is largely dependent on their speakers identity.
In fact, the proposal I make here for a split between aective and descrip-
tive adjectives is similar to what Quirk et al. propose as an ordering principle for
all premodiers:
(11) one is tempted to suggest one principle accounting for all
premodiers: a subjective/objective polarity. That is, modiers
relating to properties which are (relatively) inherent in the head of
the noun phrase, visually observable, objectively recognizable or
assessible, will tend to be placed nearer to the head and be preceded
by modiers concerned with what is a matter of opinion, imposed
on the head by the observer, not visually observed and only subjec-
tively assessible. (Quirk et al. 1972: 924925)
I shall return in my nal section to the ordering of elements in the premodifying
string as a whole. For the moment its sucient to note that the adjective slot,
at least, provides grounds for recognising in the NP domain as well as in the
clause domain a positional reex of the division between speaker-comment and
referent-description taking the form of a link between leftmost position and the
speaker-oriented element.
4. Change order, change meaning
One complication to the picture presented by (7) is that some adjectives are
polysemous and their alternative senses fall into dierent semantic sub-classes.
In particular, the v:icr class includes not only the dedicated evaluative terms
that Dixon lists, (nice, excellent, for instance) but many items which can also be
used as descriptive adjectives from classes 27, e.g.
(12) a. a sweet wine v. a sweet baby (ii v.v:i)
b. fair hair v. a fair jury v. a fair performance (coi v. ni v.v:i)
Here, as in most naturally occurring instances, the relevant sense of the adjective
is largely predictable from its head noun. But an implicit claim of Dixons model
is that word order may also play a role in sense selection, so that adjectives
whose semantic range covers both descriptive and aective senses will change
46 SYLVIA ADAMSON
meaning if they change their position in a premodifying string. This does seem
to be the case in the pairs below:
(13) a. short rotten planks v. rotten short planks [bix-ii v. v:i-bix]
b. old dark gentleman v. dark old gentleman
[:cr-coi v. v:i-:cr]
c. little yellow devils v. yellow little devils
[bix-coi v. v:i-bix]
d. tall lovely pine-tree v. lovely tall pine-tree
[bix-ii v. v:i-bix]
For each of the italicised adjectives in (13), a position to the right of its neigh-
bour promotes a descriptive reading, a position to the left favours an evaluative
reading. In (13a) rotten shifts from in a state of decay (OED sense 12) to
worthless, beastly (OED sense 8b); indeed, in this second interpretation, the
planks need not be physically decayed at all. In (13b) dark, when following old,
is interpreted as a coioc adjective (referring either to complexion or hair-
colour), while, preceding old, it is more likely to be construed metaphorically as
mysterious, secretive (the sense it has in the idiom a dark horse or keep it
dark). The coioc adjective behaves similarly in (13c), this time in relation to
a bixrNsioN adjective. Both noun phrases here would be considered evaluative,
but the rst is more likely to be construed as an expression of anti-Chinese
racism, with yellow referring to skin colour, while in the second case, a more
widely applicable insult, yellow is construed metaphorically as cowardly. In
(13d), when lovely stands to the right of a bixrNsioN adjective, it is itself
construed as a inxsic:i ioir1x adjective, synonymous with well-formed,
but shifted to the left it is an expression of speaker approval, synonymous with
nice or excellent.
5
(13d), however, diers from the other examples in this set. Its noticeable
that the pairing with lovely to the left seems to be the more natural order and the
aective reading seems to be the more normal interpretation. This suggests that
unlike rotten, dark or yellow lovely is regarded as predominantly a
member of the v:icr class in present-day English. Evidence for this is that the
descriptive sense is quite hard to evoke and it may be necessary to violate the
unmarked orderings of (7) to achieve it. So, for example, though inxsic:i
ioir1x adjectives canonically precede :cr or ncx:N ioirNsi1x
adjectives (hence crisp new [banknotes], plump friendly [people]), in the case of
lovely a inxsic:i ioir1x reading can only be achieved by putting it in the
rightmost position of such pairings e.g. old lovely trees; a kind lovely woman (cf.
lovely old trees; a lovely kind woman). It is perhaps for this reason that Matthew
Arnold selected the sequence cool lovely country in Empedocles on Etna (1852),
to block the reading associated with lovely cool country, which belongs more in
the register of tourist enthusiasm than poetic description.
6
I say perhaps because the date of this example opens up the question of
the diachronic status of the synchronic options exemplied in (13ad). It is this
that I want to turn to now. One of the interesting claims made by Dixon is that
the model of order-meaning relations expressed in (7) not only represents the
unmarked preferences of Modern English but has cross-linguistic validity too. He
posits the semantic types as universals and cites studies by Haiman, McElhanon,
Hetzron and others as evidence that the relative ordering of the types is very
similar across a wide variety of languages (Dixon 1982: 9, 26). If this is the case,
it should follow that the ordering of types will also remain constant across
dierent diachronic states of the same language, so that a change of meaning in
an adjective can be expected to correlate with a change in its unmarked position
in a string.
To test this hypothesis, lets look at the history of lovely, as a token of a
whole group of adjectives that have undergone semantic shift from descriptive to
aective senses. Classic instances of this kind of change are nice (< fastidious,
precise) and horrid (< bristling). But in these cases the change is complete, the
item has become specialised in its new function and earlier senses have been lost
(except in xed idioms such as a nice distinction). The interest of lovely is that
its semantic shift is still in progress.
5. The development of aective meaning in lovely
At the beginning of the Early Modern English period, lovely has two main
senses, both descriptive. In the rst of these, illustrated by (14ad) below, it
retains the sense-range of luic in Old English, which puts it in Dixons category 5
as a ncx:N ioirNsi1x adjective, equivalent to Modern English loving or
amiable.
(14)
7
a. for sheo to him so lovely was and trewe (1375)
for she to him so loving was and true
b. quhen he wes blyth he was luy (1375)
when he was happy he was amiable
c. with much hearty and lovely recommendations (1533)
d. being beloved in all companies for his lovely qualities (1586)
48 SYLVIA ADAMSON
In Middle English, lovely began also to function as a inxsic:i ioir1x
adjective (Dixons category 3) with the sense of physically beautiful, as
illustrated by (15) below. By 1600, this was a popular sense, and in the eigh-
teenth century it became a dominant one.
(15) a. Be he never swa stalworth and wyght, And comly of shap,
be he never so sturdy and strong, and beautifully shaped,
luy and fayre (1340)
handsome and good-looking
b. the lely, lufely to syghte (1420)
the lily, beautiful to behold
c. the tears like envious oods ore-run her lovely face (1596)
d. Leonora was formerly a celebrated Beauty, and is still a very
lovely Woman (1711)
e. the ladies covered their lovely necks (1751)
f. An amiable disposition, without a lovely person, will render a
person beloved. It is distressing to see any one who is lovely in
person to be unamiable in character (1816)
The shift from ncx:N ioirNsi1x to inxsic:i ioir1x is particularly clear
when (15f) is set alongside (14d). In the 1816 example, amiable has taken over
the ground covered by lovely in the 1586 example, enabling the writer of (15f)
to draw an explicit contrast between the qualities designated by the two terms.
But by the time he was writing, the inxsic:i ioir1x sense of lovely was
itself being challenged by a new sense, one belonging unequivocally in Dixons
category 1, a v:icr adjective, expressing the speakers approval. As the examples
in (16) illustrate, the earliest probable instances of this sense belong to the seven-
teenth century (and the culinary register), its full development to the nineteenth.
(16) a. Come lets to supper this Trout looks lovely (1653)
b. I ..soon hooked a lovely carp. Play it, play it, said she: I did, and
brought it to the bank (1741)
c. Very snug, in my own room, lovely morng, excellent re (1813)
d. Dear Fred wrote, Directly, such a lovely note (1860)
e. Mr. Lewes had a lovely time at Weybridge (1872)
Its possible, of course, that (16a), like (15b) above, is a comment on the
referents physical beauty, but much more likely that it and (16b) are registering
a shermans approval of the size of the catch or a gourmets anticipation of its
avour. In (16c), though the physical beauty sense cant be ruled out, lovely
seems to be parallel with the v:icr term excellent and part of a whole series
expressing the speakers satisfaction: snug, my own, excellent. (By contrast, the
collocational companions of lovely in (15a) are other inxsic:i ioir1x
adjectives, comly and fayre and in (14) other ncx:N ioirNsi1x adjectives:
trewe, blyth, hearty). In (16d) it seems rather unlikely that the physical beauty of
the calligraphy is in question and more probable that lovely is registering the
speakers response to the notes contents or to Freds thoughtfulness in sending
it. In (16e), neither ncx:N ioirNsi1x nor inxsic:i ioir1x senses can
be in play: lovely here reports aect in an experiencer rather than describing any
attribute of the stimulus. Read in context (one of George Eliots letters) it is not
clear whether the quotation marks indicate that the phrase a lovely time is directly
quoted from Lewess own report or (as I think more likely) that Eliot is agging
its status as a current colloquialism. The context of (16d), too, suggests that in
1860 the speaker approval sense was a marked one, associated with female
speakers, and particularly those who were regarded as not quite gentlefolk
(Coventry Patmore: Faithful for Ever, Part 3, Letter 1).
Though single examples such as these can help establish the date at which
a particular sense was available, they cannot establish the pattern of use for a
word or the relative prominence of its various senses in a given period. To try to
pin down the historical moment at which v:icr lovely displaced the ncx:N
ioirNsi1x or inxsic:i ioir1x senses, I turned to a multi-genre repre-
sentative corpus for evidence of any change in norms of usage. The table below
lists all the nouns premodied by lovely in the ARCHER corpus:
8
(17) 16501700 Proper Noun, youths, face, shade (=Male Human),
charmer (=Female Human), creature (=Female
Human)
i.e. all Human referents
17001750 Proper Noun (2), boy, face
i.e. all Human referents
17501800 Proper Noun (3), face, lady, girl, girls (2), daughter,
maiden, lily (=Female Human), companion (=Female
Human), creature (=Female Human), source (=Fe-
male Human), statue (=Female Human), innocence
(=Female Human)
i.e. all Female Human referents
18001850 Proper Noun, woman, girl, statue (=Female Human).
i.e. all Female Human referents
18501900 face, victim, evening, days shing, ornaments, spot
19001950 Proper Noun, one (=Male Human), laziness, letter
50 SYLVIA ADAMSON
1950- cakes, children, creature (=Female Human), family,
food, girl (2), hands, house, lady, lampshade, instru-
ment, man, morning, organisations, pageant, place
(2), reveling, stay, talk, trip, walks, woman (2)
What we see here is the record of two distinct changes in collocational pattern-
ing. In the rst two samples, covering the period 16501750, all the head nouns
carry the semantic feature [+ncx:N] (as in the case of youths or boy) or, in
context, have human referents (as in the case of shade, charmer, creature) or
refer to human body parts (as with face). In contrast, the collocations recorded
for the following century 17501850 show a striking restriction in range, despite
the fact that the number of nouns premodied by lovely increases in this period.
All of them, either inherently or in context, refer to a female human, a change
which suggests that by the second half of the eighteenth century the inxsic:i
ioir1x sense of lovely has displaced the ncx:N ioirNsi1x sense and
that its prototype meaning is female physical beauty.
9
But this restriction in
referential range is followed by an even more striking expansion. In the period
18501900 the typical early collocates of lovely (here represented by face and
victim) are outnumbered by nouns which cannot have a human reference,
including one days shing to which neither the ncx:N ioirNsi1x or
inxsic:i ioir1x senses of lovely could plausibly be applied. This pattern
is repeated in the remaining time chunks of the corpus, the collocations for the
post-1950 period being so various as to suggest that in contemporary English
there is hardly a noun with which lovely cannot be collocated, a situation that
points to speaker approval being its current prototype sense.
6. Change meaning, change order
I want now to return to the relation between meaning and word order. One
prediction to be drawn from Dixons model in (7) is that if the unmarked or
default meaning of an adjective changes, so should its default position in a string
of adjectives. In the unmarked case, a v:icr adjective will always occur in the
leftmost position whereas with inxsic:i ioir1x or ncx:N ioirNsi1x
senses (category 3 and 5 respectively) there is more chance of an adjective
occupying second position in the string. We would expect then that as the
prototype sense of lovely shifts progressively from ncx:N ioirNsi1x >
inxsic:i ioir1x > v:icr it will occur with increasing frequency as
leftmost partner. To test this hypothesis, we need to turn to a dierent kind of
evidence. The representative historical corpora currently available (Helsinki and
ARCHER) are limited by the small size of their database. A much larger corpus
is provided by the quotation database of the OED and though its corresponding
disadvantage, of course, is the relatively arbitrary nature of its text selection, it
can reveal gross trends in the frequency of an item and in its patterns of use. In
the following Table (18), based on the quotation database of the OED, the rst
column gives the number of occurrences of lovely per century, the second
column the percentage of those occurrences in which it appears with another
adjective, and the third column the percentage of those cases in which it occupies
leftmost position in such a string.
10
(18)
lovely % lovely +
a.n.other adj.
% lovely
leftmost
15001600
16001700
17001800
18001900
1900-
95
[77]
[96]
[120]
[171]
09
11
05
25
33
34
39
60
92
91
The gures in the rst column conrm, on a larger scale, the picture given by
ARCHER of an overall rise in lovelys rate of use, unsurprisingly perhaps given
its widening range of reference.
11
As for its combinatorial properties, though the
numbers here are still relatively small, the pattern is clear enough to have at least
diagnostic value. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries pattern together, with
lovely co-occurring with another adjective in about 10% of cases and appearing
rst in the string in about one third of those instances. The eighteenth century
oers an interesting break in this pattern. Although the overall occurrence of
lovely remains within the range of the previous two centuries, the percentage of
co-occurrence with another adjective is halved (a fact that might repay further
investigation) but the percentage of cases in which it occupies the leftmost
position doubles, an outcome consistent with the hypothesis that for the eigh-
teenth century the prototype sense is not category 5 (ncx:N ioirNsi1x) but
category 3 (inxsic:i ioir1x), which is likely only to have v:icr or
bixrNsioN adjectives preceding it. However, suggestive though the percentages
are, the numbers are too small to establish anything with condence beyond the
need for further research into eighteenth-century usage. More unequivocally
signicant is the contrast between the last two centuries (from 1800) and the rst
52 SYLVIA ADAMSON
two: a rise from around 10% to around 30% in the likelihood of lovely occurring
with another adjective and from around 30% to over 90% in the likelihood of its
appearing leftmost in such constructions.
Given the hypothesis emerging from Section 5 that the mid-nineteenth
century might be the crucial period of change, it seemed worth breaking the
overall gures down again. The result is given below:
(19)
% lovely +
a.n.other adj.
% lovely
leftmost
15001600
16001700
17001800
18001850
18501900
1900-
09
11
05
11
32
33
34
39
60
85
94
91
Comparing the top row of (19) with the bottom row, we can see a tripling in
both columns between the sixteenth century and the twentieth (9%33% and
34%91%), but the rise takes place at dierent rates in each. In the second
column, there is a major rise in the eighteenth century and another in the period
18001850; in rst column, however, the gure for 18001850 matches those for
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the tripling occurs suddenly in a
single leap (11%32%) in the second half of the nineteenth century.
One possible explanation for this striking rise in lovelys rate of co-occur-
rence with another adjective is to posit a mid-century shift in premodication
habits, with double adjectives becoming a favoured stylistic option (in the same
way as it was apparently disfavoured in the eighteenth century).
12
The other
possibility, which is the one I shall pursue here, bears on the ongoing debate
about the ordering of syntactic and semantic change in linguistic history. Taken
together, the gures of (19) are at least compatible with a scenario in which
semantic shift precedes and triggers syntactic reanalysis, such that the gures for
18001850 represent the outcome of the semantic shift in lovely charted in the
examples of (14)(16), while the gures for 18501900 represent a subsequent
and consequent category shift in which lovely develops an additional function
as intensier. We may hypothesise a story of change summarised in (20):
(20) Stage 1 (15001700)
ncx:N ioirNsi1x/(inxsic:i ioir1x) :b.
Stage 2 (17001800)
inxsic:i ioir1x/(v:icr) :b.
Stage 3 (18001850)
v:icr/(inxsic:i ioir1x) :b.
subjectivisation of meaning leads to:
left position appropriate for evaluative semantics
increased frequency in left conguration enables reanalysis as:
Stage 4 (18501900)
iN1rNsirir
new syntactic function leads to:
obligatory co-occurrence with another adj., leading to:
increased frequency in left conguration
Between Stage 1 and Stage 2, as lovely shifts its prototype sense from category
5 (ncx:N ioirNsi1x) to category 3 (inxsic:i ioir1x), the ordering
constraints of (7) increase the likelihood of its occurring in leftmost position
when co-occurring with other adjectives in a string (reected in the eighteenth
century rise to 60% in Table (19)). This in turn increases the likelihood of its
being interpreted as a member of the canonically leftmost class, the v:icr
adjectives, and in Stage 3, the situation posited for the early nineteenth century,
the prototypical sense of lovely shifts from the category of inxsic:i ioir1x
to that of v:icr. This is a more radical shift semantically, since it involves a
subjectivisation from descriptive to aective meaning, and, in terms of word
order, it makes leftmost position the unmarked option for lovely in any adjectival
string (reected in the rise to 85% for this period in Table (19)). These two
factors combine to provide the conditions under which lovely may be reanalysed
as an intensier (Stage 4) and the addition of this syntactic function to its
repertoire may account for the leap in its frequency of co-occurrence with
another adjective from the later nineteenth century onwards, since as adjective it
may co-occur with another adjective but as intensier it must do so.
7. Change order, change category: lovely as intensier
The classic example of category shift from adjective to intensier is, of course,
very, which became established as an intensier in the seventeenth century,
having originally entered the language in the thirteenth century as an adjective <
54 SYLVIA ADAMSON
OF verai (Peters 1994). In this case, the change has proceeded so far that the
original adjectival function and meaning have been virtually lost, except in some
marginal or ossied usages. But there is a whole group of aective adjectives
which in contemporary English retain dual function as adjective and intensier,
as illustrated below:
(21) good
nice
dirty
blood
jolly
pretty
lovely
(big) houses
All the items in the lefthand column of (21) can appear directly in front of the
noun, in which case they are interpreted as adjectives, but they can also appear
in front of an adjective, in which case they may be interpreted as intensiers,
modifying not the head noun but the adjective that follows them in the string.
Members of the group show varying degrees of semantic bleaching when used
as intensiers. All lose their original descriptive sense and many also lose their
aective sense.
13
So dirty and bloody in (21) lose their negative aect just as
jolly and pretty lose their positive aect (so that pretty ugly is neither denota-
tively nor emotionally anomalous). In other cases, such as nice and good, some
of the original aect persists, so that the intensier in nice big and good big
usually means something like very+approval. This is the group to which lovely
belongs, in sequences such as: lovely big party, lovely quiet engine, lovely long
legs, lovely warm room.
14
For all the intensiers in (21), unlike very, the category shift is synchronic-
ally reversible. Changing the word order prompts a reanalysis, reviving either an
aective or a descriptive sense and triggering a syntactic re-interpretation of the
construction as [adj +adj] rather than [adv +adj]. Consider the contrasts in (22)
(22) a. good long road v. long good road
b. dirty big box v. big dirty box
c. jolly small woman v. small jolly woman
d. lovely long legs v. long lovely legs
It seems possible, then, that as in the case of the manner adverbs and sentence
adverbs of (1), the synchronic alternations of (22) are the residue of a historical
process and that the history of other members of the group of intensiers listed
in (21) is similar to the history of lovely as I have traced it in this paper, with
the development from descriptive to aective meaning prompting a shift to the
left of the adjective string and the shift to the left triggering a categorial reanaly-
sis from adjective to intensier. In other words, there may be grounds for adding
to the set of recognised grammaticalisation clines the sequence:
(23) Descriptive adjective > Aective adjective > Intensier
15
8. Word order and subjectivity in the noun phrase
Finally I want to return to the relation between word order and subjectivity. It is
clear that aective adjectives are more subjective than descriptive adjectives and
intensiers are more subjective than adjectives. Its clear too that in both of these
cases the more subjective element appears to the left. The question now to be
addressed is how far this pattern generalises to the noun phrase as a whole.
In the case of a two-element noun phrase, such as the cat, we can argue for
a link between subjectivity and the lefthand element on the basis of Lyonss
distinctions between (a) nouns and noun phrases and (b) denotation and reference
(Lyons 1977: 208, 1991: 141). In this account, the noun has denotation without
reference, its function being to delimit a class (e.g. ), while the determiners
role is to turn denotation into reference and to locate the referent in relation to
a current speech act (e.g. in the utterance have you fed the cat today?, the denite
article identies the referent as a specic member of the given class, known to
both speaker and hearer). Other linguists working within the Benveniste tradition
(e.g. Teyssier 1968; Milner 1978; Coulomb 1994) have extended this kind of
analysis to the expanded noun phrase, in which one or more modiers are inter-
polated between determiner and noun. Teyssier, for example, proposes a functional
classication of English premodiers into elements which (i) identify, (ii) charac-
terise and (iii) classify. As shown in (24) below, this tripartite scheme maps readily
on to the congurational model of (6) in a way that lends specicity to Quirk et
al.s general principle of a subjective-objective polarity, expounded in (11):
56 SYLVIA ADAMSON
(24) A B C
identifying
function
characterising
function
classifying
function
pre-adjectival
modifier
adjectival
modifier
post-adjectival
modifier
subjective objective
Rightmost in the string is the classifying function, typically associated with post-
adjectival modiers and canonically realised by nominal adjuncts (as in dog
[biscuit], cheese [omelette], farm [cat]). It is the least subjective of the premodi-
fying elements in that it is assimilated to the function of the noun, working in
combination with it to restrict its denotative scope to a smaller sub-category
which may not be separately lexicalised; in some cases, where a genre or genus
achieves widespread recognition, the modier-noun collocation may itself
become conventionalised or even lexicalised as a compound noun (e.g. house-
boat, postman, tom-cat). At the leftmost periphery of the modifying string is the
identifying function, canonically associated with such preadjectival modiers as
ordinal and cardinal numbers, superlatives and quantiers (e.g. rst [biscuit],
three [omelettes], few [cats]). These items work together with determiners
(articles, demonstratives, possessives) to identify more closely the instance
relevant to the current speech-act. Their domain is thus reference rather than
denotation and they can be seen as extending the functions of the determiner in
expanding on or making explicit the notion of deniteness (hence in some
accounts they are classed as post-determiners rather than pre-adjectivals). The
adjectival modiers themselves (e.g. crisp [biscuit], large [omelette], black [cat])
are canonically associated with the characterising function, which, both position-
ally and semantically, occupies the ground between classifying and identifying.
Characterisers neither delimit the class denoted by the noun nor identify the
class-member being referred to by the speaker; rather, they specify some
additional attribute of the referent that the speaker signals as relevant or salient
in the given context.
16
The examples in (25) instantiate the model of (24),
showing all three functional slots occupied by their canonical exponents:
(25) A B C
(those) three blind house (mice)
(a) few industrious school (girls)
However, the mapping of functions on to syntactic categories is less straightfor-
ward than (24) and (25) might suggest. Adjectives in particular are by no means
conned to their canonical role. Some items classed as adjectives (e.g. scal,
dental, lunar) occur almost exclusively in the classifying function associated with
nominal modiers (compare dental surgeon to brain surgeon, scal policy to tax
policy); others show a clear kinship to determiners (Bolinger 1967: 1820),
either by intensifying the sense of already determined (same [cat], very [man])
or by relating the referent more explicitly to the time of utterance (former
[policy], late [president]) or to the epistemic stance of the speaker (possible
[friend], likely [candidate]). Adjectives that have specialised in these functions
can be distinguished from the central characterising adjectives by a reduction or
loss of syntactic properties: specically the ability to co-occur with intensiers
or in predicative constructions (contrast: very industrious with *very former,
*very monetary; or X is helpful with *X is same, *X is dental) and when they appear
in a multi-item premodifying string, they occupy the positions predicted for their
function rather than their word-class. Compare (26) below with (24) and (25):
(26) A B C
our former stringent scal policy
the same helpful dental surgeon
What has more seriously muddied the water for grammatical description is that
many adjectives can perform more than one function. For example in (*very) sheer
madness, sheer is an identier in (very) sheer clis it is a characteriser; in (very)
nasal pronunciation, nasal is a characteriser, in (*very) nasal cavity it is a classi-
er. It is this multifunctionality that produces ambiguities such as those of (27):
(27) a. my rst disastrous marriage
b. Bloggs is our only criminal lawyer
c. Cat is a common noun
(27a) is discussed by Radford (1988: 222, 1993: 82) as an example of scope
ambiguity, the dierence in meaning being dependent on whether disastrous is
interpreted as a restrictive or a non-restrictive modier of marriage. But in (27b)
(adapted from an example in Bolinger 1967), the adjective is restrictive on either
reading (criminal lawyer =(1) not a civil lawyer, =(2) not a law-abiding lawyer).
The dierence in meaning depends rather on what is being dened: in the rst
reading, criminal functions as a classifying adjective and restricts the denotative
scope of the noun lawyer, whereas in the second reading it functions as a
characterising adjective and describes the nature of the specimen Bloggs.
17
This
is not a peculiarity of the word criminal. (27c) works in exactly the same way.
58 SYLVIA ADAMSON
On one reading, common is a classifying adjective, and common noun delimits a
category; on the other reading, common is a characterising adjective and predi-
cates a property. (Hence we can say that, unlike cat, aardvark is a common noun
but not a common noun: it belongs to the designated class but does not have the
designated characteristic). This analysis could equally be applied to the ambiguity
in (27a), the only dierence being that the classier reading of disastrous
produces what is (lexically if not socially) a nonce class, disastrous marriage.
But as Bolinger points out, it is relatively easy for nonce classes to be estab-
lished in discourse (Bolinger 1967: 2427). A passage from Doris Lessing (cited
in Coulomb 1994: 8) shows this happening in practice:
(28) Jasmine whispered for a moment to a tall, thin man, the Minister for
Native Aairs, who stood up and began to speak All around
Martha people were sitting leaning forward When the tall thin
man sat down, they applauded for a long time.
The string tall thin occurs here twice, but with dierent status (as indicated by
the change in its punctuation). In its rst occurrence, it presents information that
is new both to the reader and to the central character, Martha, whose point of
view is here represented. It is readily interpreted as part of a succession of
appositive predications mapping Marthas developing knowledge of the new
character, rst his physical appearance (tall, thin), then his social status
(Minister), then his subsequent action (stood up ). In the second occur-
rence, the information about physical appearance is a given and the punctuation
indicates that the adjective string is here to be read as restrictive modication, or
construed together with the noun as a single composite unit (tall-thin-man being,
in this context, an equivalent alternative to Minister as a class-designator).
Another literary example, this time from P. D. James, (cited in Coulomb 1994: 7)
is particularly illuminating: it not only demonstrates the contrast between charac-
terising and classifying functions, but by using the same adjective twice in a
premodifying string, it shows the relation between word order and interpretation.
(29) Here was a young, impulsive, over-curious young woman.
Here young occurs as both leftmost and rightmost premodier. As predicted by
(24) and by the general hypothesis of this paper, when it appears on the right,
next to the noun, young is interpreted as a classifying modier, collocating with
woman to denote a complex semantic category (+Human +Female Adult) for
which English has no separate lexical item; when it appears on the left, next to
the determiner, young is interpreted as a characterising adjective, one of the set
of properties predicated of a specic representative of this class which the
speaker signals as relevant in the present context.
The diachronic dimension of such shifts the question of how these word
order options relate to pathways of syntactic or semantic change has been
very little studied as yet, either in terms of the history of particular items or of
the categories of premodier that they represent. One context in which such
research might be fruitfully pursued is provided by Planks (1992) paper, where
he argues (on the evidence of the behaviour of possessives in modern German
dialects) that the functional distinction between determiners and modiers is
gradient rather than categorial. What further investigation might establish is that
this synchronic gradience translates into a historical cline (as seems to have been
the case with English possessives, which are now generally classed as
determiners but in the sixteenth century still manifested the same variability that
Plank nds in German possessives today). Consonant with this hypothesis
(though presented within very dierent conceptual frameworks) is the
Carlson/Lightfoot account of the genesis of the quantier category in Early
Modern English (by a reanalysis of certain adjectives) and Spamers account of
the emergence of the determiner category in Old English (by the reanalysis of
the leftmost item in a sequence of adjectival modiers) (see Carlson 1978;
Lightfoot 1979: 168186; Spamer 1979). But both accounts are controversial,
theoretically and empirically, and it is beyond the scope of the present paper to
evaluate them here.
18
Instead, Ill conclude with a historical glance at two adjectives whose
synchronic description famously bothered Bolinger in his 1967 paper. In Modern
English mere is (in the terms I have been using in this section) a specialised
identifying modier. Picked out by Smith (1964: 39) as the token of a type so
dierent from adjectives as to require separate treatment eectively devel-
oped as part of the determiner, it well illustrates the kind of categorial indeter-
minacy that Plank detects in modern German possessives. In an earlier state of
the language, however, mere seems to have been used as a characterising
adjective, with a similar syntactic and semantic range to Modern English pure (as
witness Early Modern English usages such as [the wine] is mere and unmixed). Its
transition between the two states allows us to posit a pathway characteriser >
identier in which, in line with the general hypothesis of this paper, leftward
movement, category shift and subjectivisation are combined. But the case of
criminal suggests that this is not the only pathway of change. As the ambiguity
of (27b) shows, criminal now functions as both classier and characteriser; but
it appears (on OED evidence at least) that the characterising function is, histori-
cally, the prior one (with a criminal tyrant pre-dating the criminal law). We must
60 SYLVIA ADAMSON
an instance of de-subjectivisation, since the modier in criminal law no longer
expresses speaker comment (the law is criminal) but restricts the nouns
denotative scope (=not civil law). The existence of such a pathway is not a
problem for the hypothesis, presented in this paper, of a link between subjectivity
and leftness in the noun phrase since as the item de-subjectivises it moves to
the right of the string (compare a criminal old lawyer with an old criminal
lawyer). But it poses a challenge to any hypothesis concerning unidirectionality
of semantic change, such as the hypothesis of unidirectional increase in
subjectication over time (Traugott 1995: 45). One way of saving such a
hypothesis might be to restrict it to the domain of grammaticalisation and then
argue that grammaticalisation is only at work in one of our two cases: so that
while the development of mere from characteriser to identier (mere and
unmixed wine > a mere child) is a case of grammaticalisation, the development
of a classifying function in criminal (a criminal tyrant > criminal law) may be
regarded as a case of lexicalisation (analogous to the change black bird >
blackbird). But such an argument has consequences for the synchronic analysis
of the syntax of the noun phrase which would take us well beyond the scope of
the present paper.
Acknowledgments
This paper is gratefully dedicated to Peter Matthews, who rst made me aware that adjective ordering
was a question of interest and, by quoting from Matthew Arnold, set me thinking about its diachronic
dimension. I began to formulate these thoughts for the Workshop on English Historical Syntax, held
in Manchester in 1996 (see Denison and Vincent 1997: 6); I am grateful to David Denison and Nigel
Vincent for inviting me to speak on that occasion and to the other participants for the helpful
discussion that followed. Subsequent revisions have beneted from discussions with audiences at the
9th International Conference of English Historical Linguistics (Posnan, 1996), the 1998 Spring
Conference of the University of Northern Arizona, and the University of Cambridge Linguistics
Society. I owe particular thanks to those who have taken the time to read and comment on various
drafts of the present paper: Keith Brown, Peter Matthews, Elizabeth Traugott, Nigel Vincent and the
editors of this volume.
Notes
1. The dierence is so great as to prompt some commentators to treat the two variants of such
adverbs as a case of homonymy (see Fraser 1996). More commonly the dierence is described
as a matter of syntax; in Quirkian terms, for instance, manner adverbs are adjuncts, sentence
adverbs are disjuncts (see Quirk et al. 1972: 420520).
2. Given the appropriate intonation/punctuation other word orders are, of course, possible for both
types of adverb. The limiting case seems to be clause-initial position in negative sentences,
where manner adverbs do not normally occur (e.g. *legibly she didnt write the letter).
3. Throughout this paper, subjectivity is to be understood as referring to those elements of
language that anchor utterance in an originating speech-act, or, more generally, to the way in
which natural languages, in their structure and their normal manner of operation, provide for
the locutionary agents expression of himself and of his own attitudes and beliefs (Lyons
1982: 102). Subjectivisation is the diachronic process by which structures and lexemes become
imbued with subjectivity, or, in the terms given currency by Traugott (1982, 1990), undergo a
semantic change from meanings that may be described as referential or propositional to
meanings that may be described as metatextual, expressive or interpersonal. For further
discussion and illustrative case-studies, see Stein and Wright (1995). For a cross-linguistic
perspective on sentence adverbials, see Ramat and Ricca (1998).
4. The schema in (6) is taken from Dixon (1982: 24). A similar, though more detailed, account is
oered by Huddleston (1984: 227271).
5. Similar alternations of meaning have been observed in Romance languages between adjectives
in prenominal and postnominal positions. For a helpful summary of the terms in which the
opposition has been characterised by Romance linguists, see Vincent (1985: 184185 and
passim). The case of Spanish adjectives is well discussed by Klein-Andreu (1983).
6. I owe this example to Peter Matthews.
7. The examples in (14), (15) and (16) are all taken from the OED, either from the entry for
lovely itself or from elsewhere in the quotation database.
8. I am grateful to Merja Kyt for her help in accessing this data. For an account of the design
of the ARCHER corpus, see Biber et al. (1994a, 1994b)
9. As the lovely carp of (16b) shows, it was possible for lovely to modify a [Human] noun in the
eighteenth century, but not with such frequency as to ensure inclusion in a small cross-register
sample (in contrast to the position in the twentieth century).
10. The gures for the number of occurrences have been adjusted to compensate for unevennesses
in the OEDs sampling of dierent centuries. The adjusted gures are given in square
brackets. I am grateful to Greer Gilman F.Lib. for the calculations involved.
11. It is instructive to compare the rate of use for lovely with the gures for three other
adjectives of roughly similar meaning.
sweet goodly lovely nice
15001600
16001700
17001800
18001900
1900-
1173
[698]
[500]
[435]
[300]
400
[164]
[17]
[31]
[6]
95
[77]
[96]
[120]
[171]
127
[96]
[169]
[126]
[310]
Lovely and nice, both descriptive adjectives in Early Modern English, have acquired aective
meaning and increased their rate of occurrence, while goodly and sweet, two popular Early
Modern English aective adjectives, have declined. Goodly, being exclusively a term
(like PDE nice), has become virtually obsolete; sweet retains currency largely by virtue of its
62 SYLVIA ADAMSON
descriptive sense (=sugary) and the synaesthetic extensions of that, but in its purely aective
uses (=dear to me), it has become increasingly restricted, both collocationally and in register.
12. This explanation cannot be ruled out. It is indeed quite possible that the notable adjectivalism
of nineteenth century poetry represents a stylisation of trends in ordinary language use at the
time. But there is at present no research that Im aware of that bears on this question.
13. The degree of bleaching varies in a number of ways. For instance, it does not always go hand-
in-hand with a widening range of collocational possibilities. Dirty, for example, loses its
reference to dirt (e.g. in dirty big, dirty great) but is relatively restricted in collocability. We
cant (I think) say dirty fast.
14. A more ne-grained analysis of the pragmatics of adjective use might show that such
sequences originate as a compensatory mechanism for information decit: as aective
adjectives lose specic descriptive content, speakers may tend to insert an additional adjective
to make explicit the grounds of their approval/disapproval, e.g. instead of nice dress preferring
nice red dress or nice long dress, instead of good box preferring good strong box or good roomy
box. In these cases, the [adj.][adj.] sequence is certainly not equivalent to [adj.] and [adj.]. In
fact some members of this group notably retain their intensier reading even when in overtly
coordinate constructions e.g. its lovely and warm in here; the engine was nice and quiet; the
water was good and hot.
15. There is a further development in the history of lovely that deserves mention here. From the
late nineteenth century onwards, the OED records usages such as these:
a. Is it all right? Lovely You are duers not to come in. (1889)
b. A few silly languishers utter and simper, How nice! how lovely! (1896)
c. Lovely, loves, I loved it. And Alison here was hysterical, werent you, Alison?
(1967)
d. Mmmmm, lovely, she sighed as she tucked into calorie-laden hors duvres,
fattening spaghetti, and an enormous plateful of gooey chocolate gateau.
(1971)
Here the sense approved by the speaker, found in lovely morning (16c) or lovely note (16d),
seems to have generalised, so that lovely expresses speaker approval without a specic referent.
It seems to be the whole experience rather than an isolable part of it that elicits enthusiasm,
and lovely appears not as a premodier but alone, possibly as an ellipsis of a predicative
construction: [it is] lovely. From such uses, it is an easy step for lovely to become conventional-
ised into what we may call a response particle, equivalent to OK in (e) below or thanks in
(f)(g). Though not yet attested in the OED, this use of lovely has become very frequent in the
1990s, at least in British English.
e. Ill arrive at six thirty. Lovely.
f. Three pounds fty. There you are. Lovely.
g. Gin and tonic? Lovely.
On the basis of (a)(g) we might posit a grammaticalisation cline of the form:
Descriptive adjective > Aective adjective > Pragmatic particle
But this then raises the question of how such a cline might relate to the cline posited in (23):
Descriptive adjective > Aective adjective > Intensier
Is there a single cline in which the intensier stage precedes the particle stage? Or are there
two distinct developments, in which the intensier function develops from the attributive use
of aective lovely (via reanalysis of the premodifying string) while the response particle
develops from its predicative use (via ellipsis)? Does the intensier stage either necessarily or
empirically precede the particle stage? Or is it the case that pragmaticisation, once begun,
proceeds in parallel in dierent areas? We may note, in this context, a similar multiplicity of
outcomes for indeed. Alongside its function as a discourse marker (exemplied in (4c) above),
it too can also be used as an intensier and response particle (see OED senses 58).
16. Given the remit of this paper, I focus here on questions of word order and semantics; but its
possible that the three classes of modier are to be distinguished syntactically also, with
classiers being in a lexical relation to the noun, identiers in a relation of dependency and
characterisers in a relation of juxtaposition (as appositive predications or parenthetical
comments).
17. Bolinger himself accounts for the dierence by positing a distinction between reference
modication (where criminal lawyer =practitioner of criminal law) and referent modication
(where criminal lawyer =criminal practitioner of law). In this example reference modication
(which in Lyonss more precise terminology would be denotation modication) can readily be
equated with the classifying function and referent modication with the characterising function.
However Bolingers binary schema forces him to conate classiers with identiers (both
criminal law and mere law are, for him, examples of reference modication, despite his
awareness of the semantic dierence between the adjective types involved). He is, of course,
engaged in a syntactic debate (combating those who wished to generate adjectives by transfor-
mation from relative clauses) and his binarism derives from the syntactic opposition between
attributive and predicative constructions, which he wishes to correlate with two types of
generation [for adjectives] one, termed reference-modication, being in the kernel and
allowing for a kind of slot among the determiners, the other, termed referent-modication,
being by way of a predication which is joined by conjunction rather than by subordination
(Bolinger 1967: 1). Teyssiers tri-partite functional schema, which appeared the following year
in the same journal, is, in eect, if not in intention, a corrective to Bolingers account. That it
was not so received may be imputed to the prevailing linguistic climate of the late 1960s. It
deserves to be better known and, as I suggest in footnote 14 above, its implications for syntax
are well worth teasing out.
18. Objections to Lightfoots account of quantiers are considered by Fischer and van der Leek
(1981: 311317); a critique of Spamer will be included in Fischer (2000). Whats of interest to
me in Spamers account is that it posits a scenario in which a two-slot Bolinger-like system
evolves into a three-slot Teyssier-like system. Translated into the terms Ive been using here,
the scenario runs as follows: stage 1: Old English distinguished between reference modication
(associated with weak declension/nominal adjuncts/classifying function/rightmost position-
/recursive potential) and referent modication (strong declension/adjective + proto-determiner
squish/identifying +characterising function/leftmost position/non-recursive); stage 2: the loss of
inectional endings formal confusion between the two classes of modier recursiveness
in referent modication reanalysis of leftmost items as specialised identiers (ultimately
determiners). One of the empirical predictions following from this scenario is that sequences
of two strong declension adjectives will not occur in Old English. Testing this claim against a
corpus of Old English, Fischer nds two small groups of apparent exceptions. In one group the
rightmost elements are denominal adjectives (i.e. they are functionally, if not formally,
classiers); the second group she thinks more dicult to account for:
64 SYLVIA ADAMSON
a. swa beorht scinende steorra
such a bright shining star
b. swetum ferscum waeterum
with sweet fresh water
c. god hluttor eala
good clear ale
d. mid ofermaete unclaene luste
with excessive unclean lust
But it may not be coincidental that the leftmost adjective in three of these cases is arguably
evaluative (swetum, god, ofermaete) while in the other case, the adjective beorht is arguably
functioning as an intensier; certainly in all four examples the rightmost adjective is the more
straightforwardly descriptive of the pair and the sequence conforms both to Dixons ordering
constraints and to the more general correlation I have posited between left-right ordering and
subjective-objective semantics. None of Fischers counterexamples provides a clear case of the
combination of two central characterising adjectives i.e. strings of the type crisp white [collar]
or fast new [car].
References
Biber, D., Finegan, E. and Atkinson, D. 1994a. ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling
and exploring a representative corpus of historical English registers. In Creating
and Using English Language Corpora. Papers from the Fourteenth International
Conference on English Research on Computerized Corpora, Zrich 1993, U. Fries, G.
Tottie and P. Schneider (eds), 113. Amsterdam and Atlanta GA: Rodopi.
Biber, D., Finegan, E., Atkinson, D., Beck, A., Burges, D., and Burges, J. 1994b. The
design and analysis of the ARCHER corpus: A progress report. In Corpora across
the Centuries. Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Dia-
chronic Corpora, St Catharines College, Cambridge, 2527 March 1993, M. Kyt,
M. Rissanen and S. Wright (eds), 36. Amsterdam and Atlanta GA: Rodopi.
Bolinger, D. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18: 134.
Carlson, A. 1978. A diachronic treatment of English quantiers. Lingua 46: 295328.
Coulomb, C. 1994. Les squences dadjectifs en position prnominale. Recherches
Anglaises et Nord-Americaines, 27: 116.
Denison, D. and Vincent, N. (eds). 1997. Papers from the English Historical Syntax
Meeting, Manchester, 1112 May 1996. Issued as a Special Number of Transactions
of the Philological Society, 95 (1).
Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Finell, A. 1996. Discourse markers and topic change: A case-study in Historical Prag-
matics. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Fischer, O. 2000. The position of the adjective in Old English. In Generative Theory
and Corpus Studies: A Dialogue from 10ICEHL, R. Bermdez-Otero, D. Denison, R.
Hogg and C. McCully (eds), 153181. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fischer, O. and van der Leek, F. 1981. Optional vs radical re-analysis: Mechanisms of
syntactic change. (Review of Lightfoot 1979). Lingua 55: 301350.
Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167190.
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kiparsky, P. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Clause Structure and
Language Change, A. Battye and I. Roberts (eds), 140169. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Klein-Andreu, F. 1983. Grammar in style: Spanish adjective placement. In Discourse
Perspectives on Syntax, F. Klein-Andreu (ed.), 143179. New York: Academic Press.
Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lyons, J. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity. Loquor ergo sum? In Speech, Place, and Action:
Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, R. J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds), 101124.
New York: John Wiley.
Lyons, J. 1991. Natural Language and Universal Grammar: Essays in Linguistic Theory.
Milner, J.-C. 1978. De La Syntaxe LInterprtation. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Peters, H. 1994. Degree adverbs in Early Modern English. In Studies in Early Modern
English, D. Kastovsky (ed.), 269288. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Plank, F. 1992. Possessives and the distinction between determiners and modiers (with
special reference to German). Journal of Linguistics 28: 453468.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary
English. Harlow: Longman.
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A. 1993. Head-hunting: On the trail of the nominal Janus. In Heads in
Grammatical Theory, G. G. Corbett, N. M. Fraser and S. McGlashan (eds), 73113.
Ramat, P. and Ricca, D. 1998. Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In
Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, J. van der Auwera and D. P. O.
Baoill (eds), 187276. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Smith, C. 1964. Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English.
Language 40 (1): 3752.
Spamer, J. B. 1979. The development of the denite article in English: A case study of
syntactic change. Glossa 13: 241250.
Stein, D. and Wright, S. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Swan, T. 1988. The development of sentence adverbs in English. Studia Linguistica 42
(1): 117.
Teyssier, J. 1968. Notes on the syntax of the adjective in Modern English. Lingua
20: 225249.
semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Perspectives on Historical
66 SYLVIA ADAMSON
Linguistics, W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds), 245271. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. 1990. From less to more situated in language: The unidirectionality of
semantic change. In Papers from the 5th International Conference on English
Historical Linguistics, S. Adamson, V. Law, N. Vincent and S. Wright (eds),
497517. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. 1995. The role of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization.
Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester, 1995, (http://www.stanford.edu/~traugott/
ect-papersonline.html).
Vincent, N. 1985. La posizione dellaggettivo in italiano. In Tema-Rema in Italiano, H.
Stammerjohann (ed.), 181195. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Whorf, B. L. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf, ed. J. B. Carroll, Cambridge, Mass.: M. I. T. Press.
The grammaticalization of the verb pray
Minoji Akimoto
Aoyama Gakuin University, Dept. of English
1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to discuss the grammaticalization of the verb pray from
the fteenth century to the nineteenth century. The verb pray which was
originally used as a full verb came to be used as an interjection or courtesy
marker,
1
becoming obsolete in present-day English.
2
This process of change
seems to have taken place in parallel with what Halliday or Traugott describes
as the change from propositional to expressive.
3
As I discuss later, the change
involving pray shows more characteristics of courtesy markers (see Quirk et al.
1985: 569572) than of discourse markers, although the characteristics of both
types partially overlap.
4
In this paper, I should like to explain some factors contributing to the
grammaticalization process of this verb and then to make some new proposals to
explain this process. The following questions are posed:
1. What made the verb pray turn into a courtesy marker?
2. Why did pray as a courtesy marker fall into disuse?
3. How is politeness related to the development of pray?
4. Does the grammaticalization process of pray follow general tendencies in
linguistic change, from the propositional, the textual to the expressive
meanings, as Traugott (1982: 247248) suggests?
2. Previous studies
Ukaji (1978: 5455, 131143) discusses the variant forms of I pray you, and
related forms, such as I beseech you and I command you in Early Modern
68 MINOJI AKIMOTO
English, particularly Shakespeares works, using transformational rules to account
for their imperative structure. Based on Rosss (1970) proposal, Ukaji argues that
the various nuances of their imperative meaning came from the main sentence
verbs. (I) pray is one of them. His discussion of the co-occurrence between pray
and the imperative has a close connection with the development of pray which
I discuss later on. Imperatives are considered to have been derived from base
structure performative clauses via processes of inversion and deletion as follows
(5455):
(1) Subject-Aux Inversion: opt.
SD: I Pres pray
[+imperative]
to you [NP, Subjunctive
have
be
, X] s
1 2 3 4
SC: 1 3+2 4
(2) Equi NP Delition: opt
SD: X
1
NP X
2
[X
3
NP Subjunctive X
4
]s X
5
SC: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 6 7 8
where 2 =5
He further explains the chronological development of I pray you, I pray, pray you
and pray, with the help of data taken from the OED, via a process of deletion.
As I discuss later, the sentence I pray you also occurs in the middle of a sentence
and therefore is not conned only to performative functions.
Brown and Gilman (1989) study polite expressions in Shakespeares
tragedies, referring to I pray you, pray you and prithee as examples of indirect
requests. They also point out the co-occurrence of these indirect request expres-
sions with honoric titles such as your Majesty and your Grace. Barber
(1997: 34) also touches on the use of courteous requests by means of I prethe and
I prey thee in Early Modern English.
All the studies given above concentrate on the Early Modern English period.
It seems clear that I pray you and related forms were used for politeness, presumably
not only in the Elizabethan period, but before and after the period. As I will argue
later on, understanding the growth and development of I pray you and related
forms is very important in order to grasp the whole picture of the development
THE GRAMMATICALIZATION OF THE VERB PRAY 69
of politeness expressions between the fteenth and nineteenth centuries.
As regards historical perspectives on politeness expressions in English, in
addition to Brown and Gilman (1989), Kopytko (1995) analyses the plays of
Shakespeare in terms of Brown and Levinsons (1987) strategies of positive and
negative politeness. Kopytko concludes that the interactional style or ethos of
British society has developed from the dominating positive politeness culture in
the sixteenth century towards the modern negative politeness culture (1995: 532).
Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995) present an analysis of forms of
address in letter salutations between 1420 and 1680 on a sociopragmatic basis
with special emphasis on the relative power and social distance of the speaker
and the hearer, and the ranking of imposition.
5
These studies make no reference to pray patterns as polite expressions. On
the whole it can be said that there is no comprehensive literature touching
specically on the development of pray.
6
3. Analysis
According to the OED, the verb pray came from OF preier and was introduced
around the thirteenth century in the sense of to ask earnestly, humbly, or
supplicatingly. Under heading IV.8., the following idiomatic uses are mentioned:
a. I pray you(thee)
b. Pray you, pray thee
c. I pray
d. Contracted to pray
A 1519 citation is given for use (a) suggesting that it is the oldest, and that the
other forms are derived from it. Unlike I gesse in Middle English (see Brinton
1996: 211263), I pray you(thee) is a main clause followed mostly by subordinate
clauses, and is not preceded by so and as, as the argument below shows.
A few words are in order regarding the data for analysis. I collected related
examples from the fteenth century to the nineteenth century drawing on various
genres of writing, i.e. ction, drama and letters (see the Texts at the end of this
paper). I also make use of copious examples from the OED. Drama and to a less
extent, letters represent a colloquial style of English, essays represent more or
less a formal style of English, and ction seems to represent a mixed variety of
styles. First of all, I shall give the frequency of the variety of the forms given
above in each century from the fteenth to the nineteenth, and then discuss the
70 MINOJI AKIMOTO
grammaticalization processes which the verb pray and its variants underwent,
pointing out some causes for their falling into disuse.
3.1 Fifteenth century
The examples were collected from three works, The Paston Letters approxi-
mately 136,000 words, Margery Kempe approximately 67,000 words and Le
Morte DArthur approximately 120,000 words. What is common to these
works is that only the I pray you(thee) pattern appears with the exception of six
examples of I pray in The Paston Letters. In the pattern I pray you(thee), we nd
dierent kinds of complements. As Table 1 shows, the most frequent comple-
ment is the imperative, and at-clauses come next. To-innitive complements are
not so frequent.
Example (1) gives representative examples with imperative (1ac) (but see also
Table 1. Frequency of complements found with I pray you/thee in the fteenth century
PL Kempe Malory
imperative
at-clause
to-innitive
59
56
09
38
01
02
14
03
04
below), at-clause (1df) and to-innitive complements (1gi).
(1) a. I prey you lete it be suyd (PL 32)
b. I pray ow beth not dysplesyd wyth me. (Kempe 19)
c. I pray you come and lodge with me here at my place
(Malory 94)
d. I prey yow with al my power at of yowr wysdom and good
discrecion ye wille (PL 5)
e. I pray ow at it be owr as owr owyn (Kempe 108)
f. I pray you that at this feast I may be your chamberlain.
(Malory 275)
g. I prey you hertily to sette al these matieres in continuaunce vn-to
yowr comyng in-to Ingeland (PL 5)
h. I pray ow to schewyn me e occasyon of ower wepyng
(Kempe 246)
i. I pray you to counsel me. (Malory 150)
As regards examples (1ac), there are two possible analyses:
1. I pray you [S]
2. I pray [that you ]
Since you (objective) and ye (subjective) were confused around the fteenth
century, it would be possible to consider you to be the object of the matrix verb
and the subject in the complement clause; in the singular, there was a distinction
between thou (subjective) and thee (objective). Considering the fact that I pray
you(thee) and its variants were often used with the imperative in later periods, I
prefer analysis (1) over (2). In example (1b), beth has the same form for the
indicative plural and the imperative plural, but in this example, I interpret it as
an imperative. What makes a dierence between these analyses is that in the
former case, we have two independent clauses, and in the latter case, we have a
main clause (I pray) and a dependent clause. In examples (1e) and (f), there are
at-clauses, possibly because the subjects in the main and subordinate clauses are
dierent. In example (e), the subjunctive appears in the at-clause, but indica-
tives may occur in at-clauses as well. That-deletion took place in the fteenth
century as it does today. Thompson and Mulacs (1991) study (to be discussed
in Section 4) suggests that that-deletion promotes the parenthetical nature of the
verb, which seems to reect a diachronic change.
There are two cases in Margery Kempe where I pray you(thee) appears not
at the beginning of a sentence, but in the middle and at the end of sentences. In
contrast to the overwhelming frequency of I pray you(thee) in head position of
sentences, this freedom of position suggests that the form had a parenthetical
nature to a certain extent. In (2a), a reversal of superordinate-subordinate
structure has occurred. I pray you is parenthetical/subordinate, not main.
(2) a. And erfor prouydith ow an-oer place, I pray ow.
(Kempe 139)
b. A, Lord, I prey e, for alle goodnes late is worthy clerk neuyr
deyin
7
(Kempe 169)
3.2 Sixteenth century
I examined a work by Nashe (The Unfortunate Traveller and Other Works)
approximately 156,000 words, an Anthology of sixteenth century Elizabethan
prose approximately 69,000 words, a selection of sixteenth century letters
approximately 5,000 words and the plays of Marlowe approximately 46,000
words. As Table 2 shows, the I pray you(thee) pattern with the imperative form
was still dominant in the sixteenth century. This tendency is a continuation of the
72 MINOJI AKIMOTO
previous century (see Table 1). But what dierentiates the patterns of these two
centuries is the occasional use of wh/how-complements rather than that-comple-
ments in the sixteenth century. Both complements also occur with I pray without
a second person.
Example (3) gives representative examples with imperative (3ab), direct
Table 2. Frequency of complements in the sixteenth century
8
Nashe Anthology Letters Marlowe
I pray you/thee
imperative
wh/how-question
to-inf
direct question
5
1
1
11
01
3
2
1
I pray
wh/how-question
imperative
4
2
pray you 1
I pray you in mid position 2
I pray in mid position 3
question (3c), wh-clause (3de), and to-innitive complements (3f).
(3) a. I pray ye, good Monsieur Devil, take some order (Nashe 65)
b. I pray you be good unto her. (Letters [More] 5)
c. I pray thee, may I ask without oence? (Nashe 178)
d. but I pray you, where is my mistress this morning?
(16th Anthology 64)
e. I pray how might I call you. (Nashe 50)
f. I prai you to signi unto her Majeste that (Letters [Fry] 9)
I pray you(thee) or I pray occasionally appears in mid position, as in;
(4) a. No, keep thy drink, I pray thee, to thyself. (Nashe l79)
b. Make account, I pray you, of my rm friendship.
(Letters [Elizabeth I] ll)
(5) a. Now, I pray, what do you imagine him to be? (Nashe 57)
b. But, I pray, tell me this (Nashe 135)
3.3 Seventeenth century
As texts, I have selected a number of plays by Behn approximately 90,000
words, an Anthology of seventeenth century ction approximately 242,000
words, and a selection of seventeenth century letters approximately 25,000
words. As Table 3 shows, prithee appeared frequently in Behn. Pray, which did
not appear in the previous centuries, occurred frequently in this century. I pray
also occurred with the imperative. I pray you began to decrease. Pray thee
appeared only once.
(6) gives representative examples with imperative (6a, cd, gh, jk) and
Table 3. Frequency of complements in the seventeenth century
Behn Anthology Letters
(1) prithee
imperative
wh-question
21
13
(2) pray
imperative
wh-question
question
12
09
02
3
1
4
(3) I pray
imperative
wh-question
6
2
1
(4) I pray you 4
(5) pray thee 1
wh-clause complements (6b, ef, i).
(6) a. Prithee be not so wild. (Behn 6)
b. Prithee, why camst thou ashore? (Behn 11)
c. Pray tell me, sir, are not you guilty of the same mercenary
crime? (Behn 29)
74 MINOJI AKIMOTO
d. Pray therefore rise, and go into the solitary wood.
(17th Anthology 174)
e. Pray, sir, which is Sir Feeble Fainwoulds? (Behn 199)
f. Pray how did he break it? (17th Anthology 463)
g. I pray tell me whether you have lately seen the princ Pamphilia
(17th Anthology 82)
h. I pray present my most humble Service to my good Lady
(Letters [Howell] 19)
i. But I pray, why did you but even now with sighs and tears
j. I pray thee advise him as well for the love I bear thee.
k. wherefore pray thee be advised (17th Anthology 119)
Prithee, which is a colloquial form for pray thee, is short-lived and is often
found in drama. Although the OED cites examples of prithee from the sixteenth
century to the nineteenth century, in my data the form appears mostly in the
seventeenth century with fewer occurrences in the eighteenth century. This type
of phonological reduction and loss of morphological boundaries is characteristic
of grammaticalization and shows the development that pray is undergoing.
3.4 Eighteenth century
I have used Richardsons Pamela approximately 100,000 words, Farquhars
plays approximately 89,000 words and a selection of eighteenth century letters
approximately 58,000 words as texts. Although pray was used in the seven-
teenth century, it became more frequent in the eighteenth century. In the
seventeenth century, 89 tokens of pray and its variants occur (see Table 3), this
amounts to one incidence in the corpus approximately every 4,000 words. In the
eighteenth century, 146 tokens of pray and its variants occur (see Table 5),
which means one incidence approximately every 1,700 words. 31 tokens of pray
in the seventeenth century occupy 34% of such variants as prithee, I pray, I pray
you and pray thee, and 131 tokens of pray in the eighteenth century occupy 89%
of the variants. The position of pray in a sentence was versatile and it appeared
in a variety of sentence types. Table 4 shows the positional frequency of pray in
Farquhar, where pray was frequently used.
Positionally speaking, pray appears mostly at the beginning of sentences. This
tendency continues into the nineteenth century. Mid-position was most infrequent.
Pray is put at the end of sentences particularly in wh-question sentences. The
frequency of the complements in the works mentioned is shown in Table 5.
Table 4. Position of pray in Farquhars plays
front mid end
imperative
wh-question
question
33
36
07
2
2
0
01
10
01
Example (7) gives representative examples with imperative (7ac) and wh-clause
Table 5. Frequency of complements in the eighteenth century
Richardson Farquhar Letters
(1) pray
imperative
wh-question
question
other
18
03
36
48
08
09
06
02
01
01
(2) prithee 1 14
(7dh) and question complements (7i).
(7) a. Pray, your honour, forgive me! (Richardson 44)
b. But pray, Sir Harry, tell us some news of your travels.
(Farquhar 12)
c. So pray remember this (Letters [Lennox] 115)
d. But pray, what pretty neat damsel was that with you?
(Richardson 89)
e. Pray, who is this miraculous Helen? (Farquhar 168)
f. Pray why so? (Letters [Burke] 168)
g. What was it, pray? (Farquhar l0)
h. But whom, pray, sir, have you thought of? (Richardson 119)
i. Well, Sir Harry, and d ye like my daughter, pray?
(Farquhar 63)
Other structures which do not belong to any of the complement types given
above are those where there is no verb, as in
j. Her name, pray, Sir Harry. (Farquhar 12)
76 MINOJI AKIMOTO
Notice that pray began to be often used with honoric titles such as your honour
and Sir Henry.
3.5 Nineteenth century
The texts examined were Jane Austens Pride and Prejudice approximately
110,000 words, Oscar Wildes plays approximately l00,000 words and a
selection of nineteenth century letters approximately 58,000 words. The
nineteenth century usage of pray is slightly dierent from that of the eighteenth
century in the following respects. Pray ceased to be used in question comple-
ments. Prithee, which occurred particularly in Farquhar, disappeared. On the
other hand, I pray thee, which did not occur in the previous century, was used in
imperatives in initial position by Wilde. The revival of I pray thee is an
example of Wildes conscious use of archaism. The size of the corpus in the
respective periods is about the same (247,000 and 268,000 words), and the
frequency of pray in the eighteenth century is 131 times, compared to 33 times
in the nineteenth century. This shows a notable decline in the use of pray in the
nineteenth century. Table 6 shows the frequency of pray and I pray thee.
Example (8) gives representative examples with imperative (8ad) and wh-clause
Table 6. Frequency of complements in the nineteenth century
Austen Wilde Letters
(1) pray
imperative
wh-question
other
8
4
1
15 05
(2) I pray thee 03
complements (8e).
(8) a. Pray tell us your sister that I long to see her. (Austen 41)
b. Pray dont trouble, Lord Windermere. (Wilde 56)
c. Pray tell me something about Lord and Lady Holland
(Letters [Smith] 230)
d. But I pray thee, Salome, ask of me something else. (Wilde 86)
e. Pray, what is your age? (Austen 148)
Based on the description of the frequency of use of these forms given above, the
following conclusions can be drawn.
a. I pray you(thee) was dominantly used with the imperative in the fteenth
and sixteenth centuries, but was less frequent in the seventeenth century.
b. I pray began to appear in the sixteenth and was used until the seventeenth
century. It was used with wh-questions, although it was also used with the
imperative.
c. Pray began to be frequent from the seventeenth century onwards. It was
used both with the imperative and wh-questions, and sometimes with
questions. It often appeared in mid-position in sentences.
d. Prithee came to be frequent from the seventeenth century onwards, but
seems to have fallen into disuse by the nineteenth century.
e. Pray you(thee) hardly appeared in my data (only once).
In summary, we can depict the general change of the forms discussed above as
follows. Notice that the dotted lines denote possible use.
15
th
16
th
17
th
18
th
19
th
I pray you(thee)
I pray
pray
prithee
Table 7. Change in the forms of pray
4. Discussion
The development of (I) pray you(thee) would appear to be similar in certain respects
to that of epistemic parentheticals, I guess/think, which have received some
attention in the literature. Thompson and Mulac (199l) discuss the relationship
between that-deletion and the grammaticalization of epistemic phrases, as in,
(11) a. I think that were denitely moving towards being more tech-
nological.
b. I think exercise is really benecial to anybody.
c. Its just your point of view you know what you like to do in
your spare time I think.
78 MINOJI AKIMOTO
Although their study is synchronic, they claim that the grammaticalization
process goes from (a) to (c). This process also reects the diachronic process of
grammaticalization of I pray and related forms. That-deletion causes the subordi-
nate clause to cease to behave like one and the consequent free position of the
rst person +verb strengthens its parenthetical nature. They further suggest that
the parenthetical begins to serve the functions of epistemic modals and adverbs.
From a diachronic perspective, Brinton (1996: 211263) discusses supposi-
tional parentheticals, such as I gesse in Middle English, in particular in the works
of Chaucer. She refers particularly to their interpersonal functions which serve
the purposes of intimacy and politeness. Following Thompson and Mulacs
(1991) method of categorization, Brinton (1996: 248) lists epistemic paren-
theticals of know-verbs, such as guess, suppose, trow and woot, which were the
most common parentheticals in Middle English. She also calls attention to the
development of epistemic parentheticals which are characterized at rst by as
and so (1996: 249). As and so, which function either as relative pronouns or as
subordinators, help those verbs to develop their parenthetical nature.
The grammaticalization of pray is dierent from the development described
by Brinton in that this verb does not belong to the know-class, nor does it
begin with as and so in its process of grammaticalization. However, in consider-
ing the development of pray, we can refer to two questions posed by Brinton
(1996: 50). One concerns the choice of particular items to be grammaticalized.
The other concerns the extent to which a words original lexical meaning is
preserved in the grammaticalized word. We can also consider the evolution of
pray in relation to Hoppers (1991) ve principles of grammaticization: (1)
layering, (2) divergence, (3) specialization, (4) persistence, and (5) de-categorial-
ization. (3) and (4) in particular relate to the questions posed by Brinton.
Applying these principles to the grammaticalization processes of pray, we nd
the following. Forms such as I pray you(thee)/I pray/pray co-exist (layering).
Even after an interjectional pray was in use, the full verb pray continued to be
used (divergence). Out of such competing forms as I beseech you and I entreat
you, only I pray you turned into a courtesy marker (specialization).
9
The courtesy
marker pray still retains part of the original meaning of the verb in the sense of
supplication (persistence), and it lost its syntactic verbal characteristics being
used interjectionally (de-categorialization). Prithee also underwent de-categorial-
ization from the form I pray thee to an interjectional marker.
Hoppers principles, which are useful for the description of the kind of
change pray has undergone, are not adequate in explaining the stage-by-stage
change of pray from verb form to interjection, becoming obsolete at the nal
stage in present-day English. Traugotts theory of semantic change seems to
provide the needed explanation.
Traugott (1982) argues for unidirectional change as follows: propositional
> textual > expressive, taking as an example a hwile e (OE) at the time that
> while (ME) during > while (PDE) although. Traugott (1995: 31) further
suggests a unidirectional increase in subjectication, which she denes as a
pragmatic-semantic process whereby meanings become increasingly based in the
speakers subjective belief/attitude toward the proposition . The sequential
change of pray seems to reect the tendency towards the expression of an
emotive/subjective state. However, during this change, pray does not seem to go
through the stage of textual function. Traugott also says little about the disap-
pearance of an item. What happens to the item which acquires the subjective
belief state/attitude? Does it continue to exist, or fall into disuse for one reason
or another? Theoretically speaking, linguistic change continues for ever, and no
stage can be considered the nal one.
An aspect that studies of grammaticalization have not discussed much is the
mitigating/polite function an item may develop in the process of grammatical-
ization. The development of emotive/subjective meanings involves this function
as well. The courtesy marker pray developed this mitigating/polite function most
conspicuously.
Of the characteristics and functions of pragmatic markers that Brinton
(1996: 3235) mentions, some share those of pray. Of particular interest is the
controversial suggestion she makes (1996: 35) that pragmatic markers are more
characteristic of womens speech than mens speech. Is this point applicable to
the courtesy marker pray, too? For this purpose, I examined the distribution of
occurrences of pray in Farquhar (approximately 89,000 words), because pray
appears most frequently here compared with the other works of the eighteenth
century, and the dialogues used between the characters are varied. The results are
as follows:
mens speech 70
womens speech 31
This suggests that men use pray more often than women, although we must take
into account who it is addressed to.
10
The verb pray and its derivative forms were used as devices for expressing
politeness. From the nineteenth century onwards, however, interjectional pray
seems to have been replaced by please. The appearance of please in this sense
seems to have occurred in the nineteenth century in my data.
80 MINOJI AKIMOTO
(12) Please come and look at the biscuits (Letters [Stevenson] 417)
The citations in the OED (please II.6.c.) endorse my statement. Please was
followed by to in eighteenth century English, as in;
(13) Will you please to have your oce taken from you ?
(Farquhar 234)
Chronologically, the grammaticalization of pray from the verb to the courtesy
marker takes place as follows:
I pray you(thee)
I pray thee
I pray
prithee
pray
The deletion of you, rst of all, is possible because the second person is always
the target of address and becomes unnecessary in the imperative; it is clear in the
context. Similarly, the rst person I becomes redundant because the agent of
asking is always presupposed.
11
At the same time, semantically, the meaning of
pray was diluted, so called bleaching.
12
Syntactically, the pray variants were
continuously used with complements which were narrowed down over time. The
pray part which was rst superordinate gradually became an interjection
probably because the following sentence took on more importance in terms of
information structure, as a result of the relative decrease in the content of the
pray part. Through the repetitive or expected uses of pray with the imperative,
it began to become a meaningless interjection. Finally, pray was replaced by
please, a new form which has become frequent since the nineteenth century. It
should be noted that in the process of grammaticalization, I pray you(thee) had
at rst more of a propositional content, but with the strengthening of its paren-
thetical nature involving the change of form, expressive/interjectional uses
became more evident and continued until it was replaced and nally disappeared.
Reasons for the replacement are various. Firstly, a new form is dynamic,
new to the ear, and more expressive. Secondly, pray, because of its religious
connotations, may have been narrowed down in its context of use, and nally a
long vowel in please may have been more eective in the sense of earnest appeal.
It is, however, interesting that both pray and please came from Old French.
5. Conclusion
I have traced the grammaticalization of the verb pray from a full verb through its
use as a courtesy marker during the periods from the fteenthth to nineteenth
centuries to its disappearance. The transformation pray underwent is unique in
that it was rst used as a verb and then as a courtesy marker, and nally became
obsolete in present-day English. Hoppers and Traugotts general principles of
change give explanations for the grammaticalization processes of pray under
general principles of change, but they are not the whole story. Socio-cultural
factors, such as politeness, must be taken into consideration for a more convinc-
ing explanation of the change involving pray.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Laurel Brinton, Peter Robinson and the Editors for making detailed comments on
earlier versions of the paper.
Notes
1. Following Quirk et al. (1985: 569572), I call this interjectional function of pray a courtesy
marker, as will be argued later.
2. The full verb pray in the sense of to ask earnestly, humbly, supplicatingly has been in use up
to the present.
Examples:
(1) than he ansewereth and prayeth me no more to speke of that matter
(P.L. 161)
(2) All good people pray heartily to God for these poor sinners
(Letters [Richardson] 106)
The pray to be discussed in what follows [pray
2
] is related to full verb [pray
1
], but has split
o from it to be used as a courtesy marker. The following diagram may be helpful:
pray
pray
2
pray
1
up to the present
courtesy marker
3. I shall discuss Traugotts theory of grammaticalization in due course. Halliday (1978: 117)
refers to three functions of language the observer function (ideational), the intruder function
(interpersonal) and the rhetorical function (textual). Although Hallidays concern is synchronic,
the order of functions seems to reect the historical development of language, a view which
82 MINOJI AKIMOTO
Traugott partially shares. She sees the order of change as ideational, textual and expressive
(1982).
4. Schirin (1987: 31) operationally denes discourse markers as sequentially dependent
elements which bracket units of talk, including oh, well, and, but, or, so, because, now, then,
I mean, yknow.
Crystal (1997: 118119) denes discourse markers as sequentially dependent elements
which demarcate units of speech, such as oh, well and I mean.
Quirk et al. (1985: 569572) call please a courtesy subjunct, saying: When courtesy
subjuncts appear in questions, the questions constitute a request.
5. There are extensive synchronic studies on politeness, in addition to Brown and Levinson
(1987), particularly in the area of pragmatics, such as Leech (1983: 131151), Mey
(1993: 6774) and Thomas (1995: 149182). My argument is, however, conned to the
expression of I pray you/thee and related forms, and is not directly concerned with these
theories. For discussion of the relation between politeness and you and thou, see Wales
(1996: 7376).
6. Quirk et al. (1985: passim) refer to politeness which includes the preterite forms of modals
(could and might ), courtesy subjuncts (kindly and please), and indirect condition (if I may say
so).
7. Lord functions as a vocative and I prey e in this sentence may not be an example of middle
position with a parenthetical nature. I am grateful to a reviewer for pointing this out to me.
8. By this time complements had become main clauses since I pray and pray were often used
parenthetically. But for convenience sake, I use complements throughout.
9. I thank Laurel Brinton (p.c.) for clarifying this point.
10. One factor aecting the use of a courtesy marker pray is power/solidarity relationships
between speakers. An inferior often uses pray to his superior. For instance,
VIZARD But pray, Sir Harry, tell us some news of your travels.
SIR HARRY With all my heart. (Farquhar 12)
Regarding other uses of politeness, such as promoting or maintaining harmonious relations, see
Leech (1983: 131142). For comparison, I examined the uses of I pray you(thee) in The Paston
Letters.
The result is dierent from that of Farquhars plays. In approximately 7,000 words, the
frequencies of I pray you(thee) are as follows:
William I 10
Agnes 08
John 08
William II 08
Margaret 28
It may be said that I pray you(thee) was a favourite phrase of women.
11. I say say seems to undergo a similar process. The OED (say 12.) assumes the process just
given.
12. Regarding further discussion on bleaching, see Sweetser (1988) and Hopper and Traugott
(1993: 8793).
Texts
An Anthology of Elizabethan Prose Fiction. 15731588, P. Salzmann (ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1987.
An Anthology of Seventeenth-Century Fiction. 16211698, P. Salzmann (ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1991.
Austen, J. 1813. Pride and Prejudice, J. Kinsley (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1990.
Behn, A. 16771688. The Rover and Other Plays, J. Spencer (ed.). Oxford: Oxford
The Book of Margery Kempe. 1436?, M. S. Brown (ed.) London/New York: Oxford
Farquhar, G. 1706. The Recruiting Ocer and Other Plays, W. Myers (ed.). Oxford:
Marlowe, Chr. 1587. The Complete Plays, J. B. Steane (ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1977.
Le Morte DArthur. 1485, Ed. Modern Library. New York: Random House Inc., 1994.
Nashe, T. 1594. The Unfortunate Traveller and Other Works, J. V. Stean (ed.). Harmonds-
worth: Penguin, 1972.
The Oxford Book of Letters. 15351985, F. Kermode and A. Kermode (eds). Oxford:
Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century. 14291489. Vol. 1, N. Davis (ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Richardson, S. 17401741. Pamela, P. Sabor (ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985.
Wilde, O. 18931895. The Importance of Being Earnest and Other Plays. Oxford: Oxford
References
Barber, C. 1997. Early Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1989. Polite theory and Shakespeares four major tragedies.
Language in Society 18: 159212.
Crystal, D. 1997. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 4th edition. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Arnold.
Hopper, P. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammatic-
alization, E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 1735. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kopytko, R. 1995. Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeares plays. In Historical
Pragmatics, A. H. Jucker (ed.), 515540. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
84 MINOJI AKIMOTO
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Mey, J. L. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 1995. Constraints on politeness: The
pragmatics of address formulae in early English correspondence. In Historical
Pragmatics, A. H. Jucker (ed.), 541601. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED). 1989. (2nd edition) Prepared by J. A. Simpson and
E. S. C. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar
of the English Language. London: Longman.
Ross, J. R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Readings in English Transformational
Grammar, J. A. Roderick and P. Rosenbaum (eds), 222272. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn
and Company.
Schirin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, E. E. 1987. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In General Session
and Procession on Grammaticalization, S. Axmaker, A. Jaiser, and H. Singmaster
(eds), 389405. Calfornia: Berkeley.
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London:
Longman.
Thompson, S. A. and Mulac, A. 1991. A quantative perspective on the grammatical-
ization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization,
E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 313329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Perspectives on Historical
Linguistics, W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds), 245271 Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of
subjectication in semantic change. Language 65: 3155.
Traugott, E. C. 1995. Subjectication in grammaticalization. In Subjectivity and
subjectivisation, D. Stein and S. Wright (eds), 3154. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ukaji, M. 1978. Imperative Sentences in Early Modern English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Wales, K. 1995. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. London: Longman.
The grammaticalization of concessive markers
in Early Modern English
Guohua Chen
Beijing Foreign Studies University
1. Introduction
Since all languages have devices for linking clauses together into what are
called complex sentences (Hopper and Traugott 1993: 167) and these devices
form an integral part of the grammar of any language, it is customary to discuss
the development of these devices in terms of grammaticalization. Concessive
markers, which link the concessive clause with the matrix clause, are one type of
such devices. In recent years concessives and what are commonly called
concessive conditionals have drawn considerable attention in studies of language
change and grammaticalization. Cross-linguistic studies like those made by
Haiman (1986), Knig (1986, 1988, 1991, 1992), Harris (1988), Traugott and
Knig (1991), and Leuschner (1998) have led to some very interesting ndings
and hypotheses. Apart from Knig (1985), however, there appears to have been
no detailed diachronic study of Modern English concessive markers and, with the
exception of Leuschner (1998), which focuses mainly on universal concessive
conditionals and alternative concessive conditionals,
1
none of the studies is
corpus-based. As a result, we still know very little about the actual process in
which present-day English concessive markers have evolved. Until detailed
diachronic investigation of the changes in individual languages are made and the
actual processes of these changes revealed, hypotheses about language change
based on cross-linguistic synchronic analyses will always remain hypotheses. The
present investigation, which is based mainly on the Early Modern English section
of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts,
2
will look into the sources and actual
process in which English concessive markers are grammaticalized and explore some
of the issues related to the theory of language change and grammaticalization.
86 GUOHUA CHEN
Among scholars working in the eld of grammaticalization it is widely
accepted that there is a cline of grammaticality (Hopper and Traugott 1993: 7)
of the following type:
coN1rN1 i1rx > c:xx:1ic:i vob > cii1ic > iNrirc1ioN:i
:rrix
As concessive markers in English mostly originate in content items and are
mostly in the form of such grammatical words as conjunctions (e.g. although),
prepositions (e.g. despite), prepositional phrases (e.g. in spite of ), and correlative
conjuncts (e.g. yet), they are thought to be in the early stages of grammatical-
ization (Traugott and Knig 1991: 189). However, it is not immediately clear
why grammatical words should be inherently less grammatical than clitics or
inectional axes, nor is it proven that the former tend to develop into the
latter. In theory, fully developed grammatical words should be as eective as
clitics and inectional axes in denoting grammatical relations. In view of the
fact that the development of content words into grammatical words is usually a
gradual process, it can be assumed that the following cline of grammaticality exists:
coN1rN1 i1rx > srxi-c:xx:1ic:i vob > rcii c:xx:1ic:i
vob
From this perspective a dierent set of criteria is adopted in this paper in
measuring the grammaticality of concessive markers. Functionally, when a
concessive marker can denote the sense of concession without recourse to any
contextual cue and when its application is fully generalized, i.e. when it can be
used in any situation, it is considered to be fully grammaticalized. Formally,
when a phrase develops into a fully grammaticalized concessive marker, it often
becomes lexicalized, as in the case of although and albeit.
2. Denition and properties of concessive sentences
Of all the adverbial clauses, concessives are probably the most dicult to
dene, both formally and semantically. Formally, although there are a number of
easily recognized concessive subordinators like though and although and
correlative conjuncts like yet and still, concessive relationships are not always
marked by these markers. Subordinators such as if, when, whereas and while,
which mark other adverbial relationships, are often used with a concessive
implication (see Quirk et al. 1985: 10971102). In addition, asyndetic types of
clause linking, absolute constructions, as well as nearly all adverbial clauses may
THE GRAMMATICALIZATION OF CONCESSIVE MARKERS 87
be interpretively enriched and receive a concessive interpretation (Knig
1988: 150).
3
As a result, the formal features of concessives are not easy to
specify categorically. Semantically, the notion of concession is very similar to
the notion of contrast and inherently related to the notion of adversity. As Quirk
et al. (1985: 1102) point out, there is often a mixture of contrast and conces-
sion. Compare, for example, the two sentences below:
(1) a. Although John loves Mary, Mary doesnt love John.
b. Whereas John loves Mary, Mary doesnt love John.
(1a) is clearly marked as a concessive sentence, but it has an inherent sense of
contrast; (1b) may be classied as a contrastive sentence, yet it also allows a
concessive interpretation. The close association of the notion of concession with
the notion of adversity is indicated by the fact that the concessive marker though
is dened as basically an adversative particle (OED s.v. though) and that the
concessive correlative conjunct yet is pronounced to be more emphatically
adversative than but (OED s.v. yet, III. 9. a.). In fact it can be argued that a
concessive relationship always implies an adversative relationship, though the
sense of adversity is sometimes marked by a correlative conjunct, as in (2a),
sometimes unmarked, as in (2b):
4
(2) a. Though he is poor, yet he is satised with his situation.
b. Though he is poor, he is satised with his situation.
When the subordinator in (2a) is omitted, as in (3a), the adversative semantic
relationship between the rst clause and the second clause still remains the same,
but the sentence now looks more like (3b), which is a typical adversative
coordinate sentence:
(3) a. He is poor, yet he is satised with his situation.
b. He is poor, but he is satised with his situation.
Unable to nd a clear distinction between concessive and adversative relation-
ships, many investigators speak indiscriminately of the two relationships (see
Knig 1988: 149).
In this paper a concessive sentence is dened as a complex structure
consisting prototypically of a subordinate clause (the antecedent) and a matrix
clause (the consequent), with the subordinate clause conceding or presupposing
the existence of an actual or hypothetical adverse situation and with the matrix
clause denoting a situation which, contrary to expectation, is not aected by the
adverse situation of the subordinate clause. Any linguistic device that serves to
mark this relationship is a concessive marker.
88 GUOHUA CHEN
By the above working denition, of the six sentences in (1)(3), only (1a)
and (2ab) qualify as concessives. Although (1b) allows a concessive as well as
contrastive interpretation, it is treated as a contrastive sentence because in an
antithetical structure like that of (1b) and with whereas as the subordinator, the
sense of contrast is more salient than the sense of concession. The two sentences
in (3) are adversatives rather than concessives because a), as Quirk et al.
(1985: 644) observe, although their meaning is similar to that of (2), there is a
major dierence between them: in (2) the mans poverty is presupposed as a
given assumption, whereas in (3) it is stated as a fact; b) the relationship between
the two clauses is one of coordination rather than subordination.
By the same denition, one can distinguish two kinds of concessives:
factual and hypothetical. In this paper I use the term factual concessive to refer
to what are generally known as simply concessives and the term hypothetical
concessive to refer to what are commonly known as concessive conditionals
or, less commonly, conditional concessives. The two new terms not only
describe the semantic properties of the sentences concerned more accurately but
also help explain the way in which the grammaticalization of concessive markers
took place.
To those linguists who use the term concessive conditional, hypothetical
concessives are basically conditionals (see Knig 1986: 231; Leuschner
1998: 161). If we compare the semantic properties of hypothetical concessives
with those of conditionals and factual concessives, however, we will nd that
hypothetical concessives have more in common with factual concessives than
with conditionals. Take (4) for example:
(4) a. If you dislike ancient monuments, Warwick castle isnt worth
a visit.
b. Even though you dislike ancient monuments, Warwick castle is
worth a visit.
c. Even if you dislike ancient monuments, Warwick castle is
worth a visit.
5
Semantically, a typical conditional sentence like (4a) has two basic properties: (i)
the propositions expressed by the relevant clauses are both hypothetical; (ii) the
truth of the consequent depends on that of the antecedent. By contrast, a typical
factual concessive sentence like (4b) has two opposite properties and a third
property: (i) the propositions expressed by the two clauses are both factual; (ii)
the truth of the consequent is independent of that of the antecedent; (iii) the
situation expressed by the antecedent is assumed to be adversative to that
expressed by the consequent. Compared with the other two types of sentences,
a typical hypothetical concessive sentence like (4c) shares only one semantic
property with a typical conditional sentence the hypotheticality of the
antecedent whereas it shares all the semantic properties of a typical factual
concessive sentence except the factuality of the antecedent.
6
Since in present-day English hypothetical concessive clauses are commonly
introduced by even if and sometimes by the simple if, it is justiable on formal
grounds to classify them with conditionals. In Early Modern English, however,
even was not yet used in collocation with if to mark concessive condition.
7
In
fact, there was not any concessive conditional marker comparable to even if. The
formal distinction between conditionals and concessives was often blurred. Not
only was it common for a clause introduced by a conditional subordinator to
carry a concessive force without the help of any concessive marker, the conces-
sion introduced by the concessive subordinator though or although was often
hypothetical, as in the next two sentences:
(5) But, as for ame, our Countreyman Gilbert delivers as his Experiment,
That an Electric though duly excited and applied, will not move the
ame of the slenderest Candle.
(EModE3 Robert Boyle, Electricity & Magnetism 16)
8
(6) Yes, for although he had as many liues,
As a thousande widowes, [ ]
He shall neuer scape death on my swordes point.
(EModE1 Nicholas Udall, Roister Doister L. 1145)
So, even on formal grounds sentences like (5) and (6) deserve to be called
hypothetical concessives rather than concessive conditionals.
3. General trend of grammaticalization of concessive markers
The distinction between hypothetical and factual concessives presupposes
perceiving concession as a superordinate notion which is more basic than either
the notion of factual or hypothetical concession. As it is a more basic notion, the
grammaticalization of its expression ought to have preceded the grammatical-
ization of the distinction between factual and hypothetical concessives. In other
words, the earliest concessive markers of a language were likely those that did
not distinguish between factual and hypothetical concessions. This hypothesis is
supported by the development of English concessive markers.
In Old English the most common concessive marker was eah with its
variants, which were used for the expression of both factual and hypothetical
90 GUOHUA CHEN
concessions. As the verb of the concessive clause was usually in the subjunctive
whether the concession was factual or not, the verb form was of little use in distin-
guishing factual from hypothetical concession. Mitchell (1985: 706707) observes:
The context sometimes enables us to distinguish concessions of fact [ ] from
concessions involving possibility or hypothesis []. But it too frequently fails
[]. So little would be gained by attempting to classify OE concessive clauses
according to the nature of the concession.
It was not until Middle English that a formal distinction in verb forms began to
develop between factual and hypothetical concessives introduced by (al)though (see
Fischer 1992: 351352). The functional specialization of (al)though from a general
concessive marker to a factual concessive marker probably also began in this period.
A similar development can be observed in many other languages. On the basis
of a survey of the concessive markers of 70 languages, Knig (1988: 152) concludes:
All languages seem to have a construction, or at least had at some stage in
their historical development, that can be used both as a marker of concessive
conditional and of concessive sentences proper.
9
Free-choice expressions, in
particular, are used as concessive connectives in a wide variety of languages
and the dierentiation between concessive conditional and concessive interpre-
tation is often left to the context, the mood (subjunctive vs. indicative) or some
other marking of the verb. [] In those languages where a clear distinction
can be made between concessive conditionals and concessives (e.g. even if vs.
even though), this distinction was established fairly late.
However, it seems as if Knig is not very interested in the development de-
scribed above, for he neither describes and explains it in sucient detail nor
oers any English example of it.
10
What he seems more interested in is, among
other things, the development of conditional markers and hypothetical concessive
markers into factual concessive markers. He observes (1988: 153154):
In many languages, concessive connectives are composed of a conditional (e.g.
G. wenn), originally conditional (e.g. E. though, G. ob) or temporal connective
(e.g. Fr. quand; Finn. kun) and/or an additive or emphatic focus particle like
E. also, even, too. [] This type of connective, probably the most frequent in
the worlds languages, provides further evidence for the assumption that
(concessive) conditionals are an important source for the development of
concessive constructions.
If, as Knig believes, factual concessive markers may derive from hypothetical
concessive markers, then the grammaticalization of hypothetical concessive
markers must have preceded that of factual concessive markers. This is impossible if
we accept the earlier hypothesis about the development of general concessive
markers into hypothetical and factual concessive markers. According to that
hypothesis, before the emergence of any formal distinction between hypothetical
and factual concessives, there cannot have been any hypothetical concessive
marker. The grammaticalization of factual concessive markers must have begun
simultaneously with that of hypothetical concessive markers, one can not proceed
without the other.
As we examine the case history of the concessive markers in English in the
next section, we shall nd more evidence in support of the rst hypothesis.
4. The grammaticalization of concessive markers
Since the hypotheticality of hypothetical concessives in Early Modern English
could not be eectively marked by the verb form unless the concession was
counterfactual, the grammaticalization of hypothetical concessive markers
proceeded in the direction of concessive reinforcement of conditional markers,
which eventually led to the creation of even if in Late Modern English. At the
same time (al)though, which was losing ground in the expression of hypothetical
concessions, continued its process of functional specialization as a factual
concessive marker in the face of competition from three late-coming concessive
subordinators albeit, for all and notwithstanding.
4.1 Sources of concessive markers
Concessive markers may derive from a wide variety of sources (cf. Knig
1985: 911, 1988: 152156; Harris 1988: 7587), all related in one way or
another to the basic semantic, pragmatic and syntactic properties of concessives.
In this paper the sources that contributed to the development of concessive
markers in Early Modern English are classied into the following ve categories:
i. Expressions that directly concede the existence of an adverse situation, such
as admit and grant.
ii. Expressions that emphasise the adversity of the conceded situation, such as
all and never so.
iii. Expressions that assert the ineectiveness of the conceded situation, such
as in (de)spite of and notwithstanding.
iv. Expressions that state the concomitance of the two situations expressed by
the antecedent and the consequent, such as though.
v. Expressions that help arm the factuality of the situation expressed by the
consequent, such as nevertheless, still and yet.
92 GUOHUA CHEN
4.2 Expressions that directly concede the existence of an adverse situation
From the point of view of speech act theory, a conditional clause expresses the
speech act of supposing (see Van de Auwera 1986: 204). Likewise, a concessive
clause expresses the speech act of conceding. Just as supposing can be expressed
directly by a suppositional verb or phrasal verb (see Chen 1996: 4046), conced-
ing can be expressed directly by a concessive verb. Like supposing, conceding
can also be expressed directly by an expression containing a verb form denoting
optative modality.
4.2.1 Concessive verbs
In Early Modern English, admit and grant can serve as a kind of concessive
subordinator. The OED (s.v. admit, 2d) notes the use of admit in the sense
allow, concede, grant (either from conviction, or for the sake of argument) to
introduce an object clause. One of the examples it cites clearly functions as a
concessive marker:
(7) I know he cannot of himself bring into the eld aboue fty thousand
ghting men: But admit he were able to bring an hundred thousand;
are not you (if you so please) able to levy a far greater power?
(1603 Knolles Hist. Turks (1638) 197)
In the Helsinki Corpus there are altogether ve instances of admit (including one
in the form of present participle) with an object clause. In three instances, the
object clause is concessive:
(8) But admitte it be as you saye, what dothe this proue against me?
(EModE1 State Trials, The Trial of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton I,
74.C2)
(9) Admitt there were, Sir, quoth he, an acte of parliament that all the
Realme should take me for kinge. Wold not you, master Moore, take
me for kinge?
(EModE1 William Roper, The Lyfe of Sir Thomas Moore 85)
(10) Admitting I had delivered the same to the Lord Cobham, without
allowing or approving, This I hope is no Treason.
(EModE2 State Trials, The Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh I, 214.C1)
The pragmatic dierence between (8) and (9) is interesting. Both have a
rhetorical question as the consequent, but (8), with the consequent being in the
armative and therefore not formally adversative to the antecedent, is a
conditional sentence with a concessive implication, while (9), with the conse-
quent being in the negative and therefore formally adversative to the antecedent,
is a concessive sentence with a conditional implication.
The OED (s.v. grant, v. 7 a) also notes a similar use of grant, stating
specically that it often introduces an adverbial (concessive) clause. Among
the examples it cites are:
(11) Grant they never used drinking and bezling before they came to Sea
[] they will soon nde out the art. (1659 D. Pell Impr. Sea 73)
(12) Granting there were antiently such names [] it remaines doubtfull
[etc.]. (1674 tr. Scheers Lapland 4)
In the Helsinki Corpus there is only one instance of granting that:
(13) Granting that Gilberts Assertion will constantly hold true, and so,
that ame is to be excepted from the general Rule, yet this exception
may well comport with the Hypothesis hitherto countenancd.
Concerning the use of admit(ing) and grant(ing) in (7)(13), three points are
worth noting: (a) they are at an early stage of grammaticalization; (b) they
cannot be labelled as either factual or hypothetical concessive markers, because
the nature of the concession is determined by the context; (c) they cannot even
be labelled simply as concessive markers, because sometimes they allow the
object clause to be purely conditional, as in:
(14) But sometimes the deuill hath power giuen him to plague and doth the
harme. Admit he had power giuen him, and did kill the cattle of this
man: let vs come nowe to that, who think you, gaue him the power for
to strike and kill?
(EModE2 George Giord, A Handbook on Witches and Witchcraft
E2R)
It may be argued that admit(ing) and grant(ing) are just like other suppositional
verbs and phrasal verbs, such as suppose and put the case, which can function as
a kind of conditional subordinator (see Chen 1996: 4046). In certain contexts
these suppositional verbs and phrasal verbs sometimes allow the clause they
introduce to have a concessive force, as in:
94 GUOHUA CHEN
(15) Suppose ten, fteene, or twenty men and horses come to lodge at their
house, the men shall haue esh, tame and wild-fowle, sh with all
varietie of good cheere, good lodging, and welcome.
(EModE2 John Taylor, The Pennyless Pilgrimage 138.C2)
(16) Put the Case, I should come to my Lord Cecil, as I have often done,
and nd a Stranger with him, with a Packet of Libels, and my Lord
should let me have one or two of them to peruse: This I hope is no
Treason.
(EModE2 State Trials, The Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh I, 214.C1)
If admit(ing) and grant(ing) are essentially conditional markers, it may be fair to
say, semantically, that they have a concessive origin.
4.2.2 The optative albeit
Optative (volitive) modality and expressions with an optative meaning are found
to have contributed to the development of certain conditional markers (cf.
Traugott 1985: 290291; Chen 1996: 4650). They are also an important source
for the development of concessive markers (see Harris 1988; Knig 1988). In
Early Modern English, the optative modality is often realized in the subjunctive
mood of the verb. This is the mood shared by the concessive marker all be it,
which is usually spelt albeit, and the conditional marker so be it and its variants.
Now the question is whether there is a derivational relationship between the two
expressions. Knig(1988: 159) thinks albeit is a typical example of the introduc-
tion of the emphatic particle all into a (concessive) conditional protasis. In
other words it is thought to have a conditional origin. The discussion of the
function of all will be postponed till the next section. Here I would like to point
out that the chronology of albeit and be it suggests that the former cannot have
been derived from the latter. In the OED the rst recorded use of al be it so (s.v.
credible) and that of its past-tense form al were it so (s.v. albeit) are both dated
1374, and albeit (s.v. albeit) 1385, whereas the rst recorded use of so be it (s.v.
solidate, pa. pple.) is dated 1542, be it so (s.v. be, v. 3) 1549, and be it (s.v. be,
v. 3) 1611. So despite their identity in verb form, it is unlikely that the conces-
sive albeit is a derived form of the conditional be it.
The OED gives all be it that (s.v. albeit, conj.) as the proper form of albeit
and all though it be that its full form. It is not clear how the full form was
reduced to the proper form. A distinction is made between albeit that and the
simple albeit, but the two forms are given virtually the same factual concessive
denition and all the examples it cites seem to allow only a factual concessive
interpretation. So albeit appears to have been a factual concessive marker all
along. When used to introduce a verbless clause, albeit is dened as even
though, even if [my emphasis], although. So it may allow the concession to be
hypothetical. But this hypothetical concessive use of albeit is a rather late
development, with the rst example dated 1795.
By the OEDs account, then, albeit is essentially a factual concessive
subordinator. However, it is by no means impossible for it to introduce a hypo-
thetical concessive. Sentence (17), found in Visser (1972, II: 906) is an early
example:
(17) Al be it so the bodi deie,
The name of hem schal nevere aweie. (c1390 Gower, C.A. 4, 2393)
The hypothetical concessive use of albeit continued in Early Modern English,
though accounting for only a very small minority of instances compared with its
factual concessive use. In the Helsinki Corpus there are altogether 27 instances
of albeit (including one instance of all be it and two instances of al(l) were it, all
in EModE1), of which only the following three introduce a hypothetical concessive:
(18) And that no manne undre the degree of a Baron use in his Apparell of
his body or of his Horses eny clothe of golde or clothe of Sylver or
tynsyn Satten ne no other Sylke or Clothe myxte or broderd wyth
Golde or Sylver uppon payne of forfeyture of the same apparrell,
albeit that yt be myxte wyth eny other Sylke or clothe.
(EModE1 The Statutes of the Realm III, 8)
(19) If the parties will at my handes call for iustice, then, al were it my
father stood on the one side, and the Divill on the other, his cause
being good, the Divill should haue right.
(EModE1 William Roper, The Lyfe of Sir Thomas Moore 42)
(20) The ditches were so anoyed with water, that they were troublesome to
passe, albeit no other impediment should have bene oered.
(EModE2 John Hayward, Annals of the First Four Years of the Reign
of Queen Elizabeth 64)
Judging by its distribution in the Helsinki Corpus, albeit became fully grammat-
icalized as a concessive conjunction by the end of the sixteenth century, for after
that no more instances of its analytic form are found. Unexpectedly, as it became
more grammaticalized, its use underwent a sharp decline in frequency. This is
shown in Table 1. We shall see later that this sharp decline coincides with a
sudden increase in the use of though during the same period.
96 GUOHUA CHEN
4.3 Expressions that emphasise the adversity of the conceded situation
Table 1. Distribution of factual concessives (F.C.) and hypothetical concessives (H.C.)
introduced by albeit and its variants in the three sub-periods of the Helsinki Corpus
Concessive marker EModE1 EModE2 EModE3
F.C. H.C. F.C. H.C. F.C. H.C.
Albeit 18 2 6 1
It has been found that concessive markers in many languages contain an
emphatic universal quantier like all or an emphatic focus particle like even (see
Knig 1985: 10, 1988: 153; Harris 1988: 75). The motivation for the use of such
words seems self-evident. On any scale, Harris (1988: 80) explains, a situation
which is depicted as being entirely at one end is clearly ready made to be used
concessively, provided that the end specied is that least readily compatible with
the main clause, which is nevertheless represented as true. Expressions of
totality or extremity, which emphasise or exaggerate the adversity of the situation,
serve to make the concessive relationship clearer. Take (21) for example:
(21) The strength and beauty of this small creature, had it no other relation
at all to man, would deserve a description.
(EModE3 Robert Hooke, Micrographia 13.5, 210)
The above sentence has the form of a conditional sentence with no concessive
marker, yet it is a hypothetical concessive sentence because the supposition that
the small creature had no other relation to man is not factual and is adversative
to its deserving a description. The adversity of the supposition is enhanced by the
phrase at all, which indicates that the concession is unreserved and total. Without
it, the concessive relation will be less apparent. Since expressions of totality and
extremity can help make the concessive relationship clear, it is not surprising that
they have contributed to the formation of concessive markers in so many languages.
4.3.1 The function and uses of all
In English all never functions as an independent concessive marker. We have
seen in 4.2.2 that it can collocate with the optative be it to form the concessive
subordinator albeit. In addition, it can combine with a conditional marker to
mark hypothetical concession, or with the concessive marker though for conces-
sive reinforcement, or with the causative marker for to mark factual concession.
4.3.1.1 All +a conditional marker. According to the OED (s.v. all, adv. 10 a),
with if and though in if all, though all, all emphasised supposition or conces-
sion, =Even if, even though. It points out that the more common word order
was all if, all though. All the examples of if all are from fourteenth century texts.
The rst instance of all if is dated 1340, the last 1557:
(22) All if he haue power so to do.
(1557 Barclay, Jugurtha (Paynell) A ij.)
The OED (s.v. all, adv. 10 c) also notes that with the subj. mood, though or if,
being expressed by the reversed position of vb. and subject (as in be they =if they
be), were omitted, leaving all apparently =although. Thus: al be I =all though I
be. The examples it cites are mostly factual concessives, like:
(23) We brought more than ye were able to answer, all were it no Scrip-
tures, nor Councels, nor Doctours.
(1560 H. Cole Lett. to Jewel,)
At least (24) is a hypothetical concessive:
(24) All could he further then earths center go.
(1599 Bp. Hall. Satires . .
The use of all in combination with a conditional marker does not seem very popular
in Early Modern English. No instance of it is found in the Helsinki Corpus.
4.3.1.2 All though. Believing that though was originally a conditional marker,
which was reinterpreted as a concessive marker when strengthened by all, Knig
(1985: 13) explains:
Recall that conditionals do not entail their antecedents. But, even though they
are typically used in situations where the antecedent is not assumed to be true,
they are compatible with a factual interpretation. What emphatic elements like
all do is to give a factual character to a clause which expresses no commit-
ment of the speaker with respect to its truth or falsity without such a particle.
The origin of though will be discussed later in this paper. The question here is
whether all did give a factual character to a clause introduced by though.
Suppose though did have a conditional origin. If the reinterpretation of although
had been caused by the addition of all, then the bare though should have
remained a conditional marker. Yet today though is as much a factual concessive
marker as although. Since both though and although were on their way to
98 GUOHUA CHEN
becoming factual concessive markers, the word all cannot have played any
signicant role in the process.
By contrasting a hypothetical concessive introduced by though with a factual
concessive introduced by al thoughe, both found in Chaucers Canterbury Tales,
Knig (1985: 9) seems to suggest that by Chaucers time the reinterpretation of
al though had already taken place. Yet in Early Modern English examples of
hypothetical concessive use of although can still be easily found, indicating that
the concessive reinforcement of though with all did not guarantee that the
expression was a factual concessive marker. We have seen an example of
counterfactual concessive introduced by although in (6) at the beginning of this
paper, where the counterfactuality is signied by the use of backshifted past
tense. When the concession is not counterfactual but only hypothetical, the tense
of the verb is not backshifted:
(25) If a man with gorgeous apparell come amongst vs, although he bee a
theefe or a murtherer (for there are theeues and murtherers in gor-
geous apparell) be his heart whatsoever, if his coat be of purple, or
velvet, or tissue, every one riseth up, and all the reverent solemnities
wee can vse, are too little.
(EModE2 Richard Hooker, Two Sermons upon Part of S. Judes Epistle 8)
(26) Everie p
~
son and p
~
sons which after one moneth nexte ensuinge the
end of this p
~
sent Session of Parliament, shall stabbe or thruste any
p
~
son or persons that hathe not then any weapon drawne, [] soe as
the person or persons soe stabbed or thruste shall thereof die within
the space of sixe moneths then next followinge, although it cannot be
proved that the same was done of malice forethoughte, yet the partie
soe oendinge [] shall be excluded from the benet of his or theire
Cleargie, and suer Deathe as in case of Wilfull Murder.
(EModE2 The Statutes of the Realm IV, 1026)
If we compare the ratio of factual concessive vs. hypothetical concessive uses of
although with that of though, as is shown in Table 2, we will nd: (i) the factual
concessive use of both expressions is much more common than their hypothetical
concessive use; (ii) the percentage of factual concessive use of although is higher
than that of though; (iii) there is a dramatic increase in the frequency of though
in EModE2 and EModE3. The rst nding shows that in Early Modern English
both though and although were well on their way of becoming factual concessive
markers. The second nding indicates that although was going one step ahead of
though in this process. The third nding may explain why the use of albeit
sharply decreased over the same period.
Table 2. Distribution of factual concessives (F.C.) and hypothetical concessives (H.C.)
introduced by although and though in the three sub-periods of the Helsinki Corpus
Concessive marker EModE1 EModE2 EModE3
F.C. H.C. F.C. H.C. F.C. H.C.
although
though
22 (92)
37 (76)
02 0(8)
12 (24)
33 (83)
65 (77)
07 (17)
19 (23)
018 (95)
147 (85)
01 0(5)
26 (15)
4.3.1.3 The factual concessive marker for all. According to the OED (s.v. for,
prep. VII. 23), the use of for in the sense in spite of, notwithstanding in
relation to a preventive cause or obstacle began as a preposition in Old English
and was rare without all. The contribution of all to the concessive meaning of
for all is apparent. The original meaning of for was in front of and in the
presence or sight of (OED, s.v. for, prep. I. 1). This sense was conducive to for
all having the factual concessive sense in spite of, because when something is
in sight it is usually assumed to be factual. It appears that for all was not used as
a concessive marker until the beginning of the sixteenth century. Sentence (27)
is the rst instance of its use cited in the OED (s.v. for, prep. VII. 23):
(27) For all that the frenche kynge sende to hym to delyuer the same
castels, yet he refused so to do.
(1523 Ld. Berners Froiss. I. clvi. 189)
In the Helsinki Corpus for all that is quite common as a prepositional phrase, but
only in (28) is it clearly used as a concessive marker:
(28) How many of this Citie for all that they are Vsurers, yet would be
counted honest men, and would faine haue Vsurie esteemed as a
trade. (EModE2 Henry Smith, Two Sermons on Of Usurie B2V)
4.3.2 SV inversion +never so
The phrase never so is dened in the OED (s.v. never, adv. 4) as in conditional
clauses, denoting an unlimited degree or amount, with the rst instance of its
use dated as no later than 1122. Interestingly, this emphatic construction has a
negative form but a positive meaning. The rst three citations in the OED all
begin with another negative particle (nfde [= ne +hfde], ne), which suggests
that the construction probably rst began as a double negative. By the fourteenth
century the single negative form had become the rule and its use continued until
100 GUOHUA CHEN
the end of the seventeenth century when it began to be replaced by the logically
correct form ever so (see the OED s.v. ever, adv. 9 d). Although seemingly
illogical, never so makes very good sense as a concessive marker, with so
denoting the extremity of the adversative situation, and never suggesting the
speakers contemptuous deance of the situation.
In the Helsinki Corpus altogether six instances of its use are found, all
giving only a hypothetical concessive reading, for example:
(29) Were he of hym selfe neuer so feble and faint, nor neuer so lykely to
fall, yet the grace of God was sucient to kepe hym vp and make him
stand.
(EModE1 Thomas More, TheCorrespondence of Sir Thomas More 546)
(30) They can not abide to read any medicine, that is of a long composition,
be it neuer so precious.
(EModE2 William Clowes, Treatise for the Articiall Cure of Struma
34)
The use of SV inversion+never so is morpho-syntactically restricted. The subject
is restricted to a personal pronoun, the verb to the subjunctive be and were.
Because of this, the expression is not a fully grammaticalized concessive marker.
4.4 Expressions that assert the ineectiveness of the conceded situation
The ineectiveness of the conceded situation is commonly asserted by expres-
sions of contempt, deance or disregard (cf. Knig 1988: 152153). By asserting
this ineectiveness, the speaker arms the independence of the consequent
situation on the conceded situation. The concession expressed in this way tends
to be factual. It is natural for such expressions to mark factual concession
because they typically bring out a denite noun phrase expressing a presupposi-
tion, and when something is presupposed, its existence or factuality is normally
assumed. In Early Modern English there are three such expressions (in)
despite (of), in spite of and notwithstanding.
4.4.1 (In) despite (of) and in spite of
According to the OED (s.v. despite and spite), both despite and spite were
derived directly from OF despit at the end of the thirteenth century, with spite
being the aphetic form of despite. From the moment it was borrowed, despite in
the phrase in despite of was used in the sense in contempt or scorn of; in
contemptuous deance of (OED, s.v. despite, n. 5 a), whereas the use of in spite
of did not appear until 1400 (OED, s.v. spite, n. 5 a). Knig (1988: 157) observes
that expressions like in spite of derive from predicates originally only attribut-
able to arguments denoting human agents or experiencers. It appears that, when
in despite of or in spite of is used in its original sense, not only does the subject
of the sentence typically denote a human agent, the object of the phrase also
typically denotes a human patient, as in:
(31) And sent all their heddes to be set upon poles, over the gate of the
citie of Yorke in despite of them, and their lignage.
(1548 Hall Chron. 183 b)
(32) In spite both of him and his Legate, they kept company with them that
were excommunicate. (1568 Grafton Chron. II. 113)
The reinterpretation of the two expressions as concessive markers seems to have
gone hand in hand with the loosening of the collocative restrictions. When the
subject of the sentence or the object of the prepositional phrase denotes some-
thing non-human, the sense of concession becomes more apparent, for example:
(33) To assaile the entrie of the mouth of Lisbone, in despite of all the
fortresses that were there. (1600 E. Blount tr. Conestaggio 132)
(34) He dyed, Clad in his cote armor paynted all in paper, Al torne and
reversed in spyte of his behaver.
(1563 Mirr. Mag., Blacke Smyth & Ld. Awdeley lx,)
The OED (s.v. despite, n. 6) notes that, in later use, in despite of in the sense
notwithstanding often suered the loss of in and was further shortened to
despite, thus eventually becoming a preposition:
(35) If this Bruno sit in Peters chair, despite of chance.
(1590 Marlowe Faust Wks. (Rtldg.) 123/2)
(36) Ile Ransacke the pallace where grim Pluto reignes Despight his
blacke guard. (1613 Heywood Silv. Age iii. Wks. 1874 III. 159)
In spite of sometimes also lost its in (see OED, s.v. spite, n. 6), for example:
(37) Spyte of your enemyes, I shal me so spede, That in short tyme ye may
rewarde my mede. (1509 Hawes Past. Pleas. xix. (Percy Soc.) 96)
But somehow it did not go so far as to become a preposition.
In the Helsinki Corpus the use of (in) despite (of) and in spite of is very rare.
Only one instance of in despite of is found, which does not appear to be concessive:
102 GUOHUA CHEN
(38) Al though Sicilians had exiled hym, yet in despite of them all he
reigned.
(EModE1 Thomas Elyot, The Boke Named the Gouernour 22)
Two instances of in spite of are found, both functioning as concessive markers.
Sentence (39) is one of them:
(39) The knowledge of the tonges (in spite of some that therein had
orished) was manifestly contemned.
(EModE1 Roger Ascham, The Schoolmaster 281)
4.4.2 Notwithstanding
The formal make-up of notwithstanding (not + withstanding) is transparent, and
its etymology is clear. According to the OED (s.v. withstanding), it was coined
in the late fourteenth century in imitation of the medieval Latin phrase non
obstante or OF non obstant. Initially a preposition used in the sense in spite of,
in the mid-fteenth century it began to be used as a conjunction in the sense
although. This use continued throughout Early Modern English, for example:
(40) Notwithstonding your grace had commaundid us to retorne, yet we
wold be content to make here abode.
(1502 Lett. Rich. III & Hen. VII (Rolls) II. 111)
(41) Dick, I thank God, continueth free from any infectious disease not-
withstanding since Michalmas there hath dyed in the town seaven
score and the greatest part of the small pox.
(EModE3 Elizabeth Oxinden, The Oxinden and Peyton Letters 308)
From the late fteenth century onwards, notwithstanding began to be positioned
after the noun phrase. Following is an Early Modern English example:
(42) But, her worthiness notwithstanding, and that he had a fair daughter
by her, he was wonderfully tormented in conscience.
(1555 Harpseld Divorce Hen. VIII (Camden Soc.) 179)
In terms of grammaticalization, this seems to be a retrogression, because
prepositions are more grammatical than participles and this postpositional
notwithstanding can in eect be interpreted as a present participle, and the
whole phrase as an absolute clause. The motivation for this change in word order
probably lay in a desire to smooth out the apparent incongruity between the
literal meaning of notwithstanding not standing against and the sense of
concession it is meant to express. Consider the prepositional use of notwithstand-
ing in (43):
(43) He dothe wronge, nothwithstondynge the said lawe declared by the
prophete. (1460 Fortescue Abs. & Lim. Mon. iv. (1885) 117)
If nothwithstondynge the said lawe is paraphrased as not standing against the
said law, then the intended concessive meaning will be lost. By contrast, (42)
presents no such problem, because there the noun phrase expressing the conceded
situation is the subject, and it is this situation that is not standing against the
consequent situation, so everything is in place.
In the Helsinki Corpus, I have identied only four instances of conjunc-
tional notwithstanding, so its use is not very common. There are 27 instances of
postpositional notwithstanding as compared with 21 instances of its prepositional
use, but the overwhelming majority of its postpositional use is concentrated in
just one genre Law. In this type of text the sense of concession expressed by
the postpositional notwithstanding is often not very strong, for example:
(44) All Clothmakers within the same Countie may make cloth and use
clothmakyng as they before the makyng of this acte have usyd and
accustomed, this acte or any thyng therin conteyned notwith-
stondyng. (EModE1 The Statutes of the Realm III, 29)
4.5 Expressions that state the concomitance of the two situations expressed by the
antecedent and the consequent
As we have seen in Section 2, an essential semantic property of concessives is
that the adverse situation expressed by the antecedent does not aect or prevent
the existence or occurrence of the situation expressed by the consequent. Since
both situations coexist or co-occur, expressions such as while and though, which
denote concomitance, become a natural source of concessive markers.
4.5.1 While
According to Traugott and Knig (1991: 201), the temporal conjunction while
probably began to have a concessive inference in the early seventeenth century.
The example they cite is from the OED (s.v. while, conj. 2.b):
(45) Whill others aime at greatnes boght with blood, Not to bee great thou
stryves, bot to bee good. (1617 Sir W. Mure Misc. Poems xxi. 23)
But by the denition adopted in this paper, (45) and the other seventeenth
century example sound more like sentences of contrast. No genuine concessive
use of while is found in the Helsinki Corpus.
104 GUOHUA CHEN
4.5.2 Though
Both Knig (1985: 1011, 1988: 153154) and Harris (1988: 75) regard condition-
al markers as one of the most important sources of factual concessive markers.
The English example they cite is the OE eah. According to Knig (1985: 7),
OE eah is related to Gothic au + h if + also/and and the earlier Gothic
cognate shows that this form has a clear conditional origin and was originally
used to express a concessive conditional relationship. According to the OED
(s.v. though, adv. and conj.), however, the au of Gothic auh means in that
case. Since in that case can be interpreted both hypothetically and factually
and since in its earliest days eah was actually used to introduce both factual as
well as hypothetical concessions, it was more likely that it started out as a
general concessive marker rather than a conditional marker. If though had a
conditional origin, we should be able to nd more traces of it in its early use.
What I nd instead is just the opposite. According to the OED (s.v. though, conj.
1 and 4), its concessive use can be traced back to c888 while its use in the form
as though in the sense as if did not appear until c1200. On the basis of an
exhaustive study of concessive sentences in Old English poetry, Quirk concludes
that the purely conditional function of eah is extremely rare in OE and
probably not in evidence at all in the poetry (Quirk 1954: 39). Quirks verdict
is conrmed by Campbell, who categorically declares: There is no evidence that
eah can be used for gif (Campbell 1956: 66 fn. 2).
If eah did not begin as a conditional marker, what kind of expression was
it initially? I think the answer lies in the sense also/and denoted by h. Cross-
linguistically, additive focus particles like the English also and too are
frequently a component of concessive connectives (see Knig 1985: 1011). This
is motivated by the fact that such particles signify the notion of concomitance. In
the case of though, because of its semantic make-up, from the very beginning it
could be used as a concessive adverb (see OED, though, I. a. adv.). In Mitchells
view, which is drawn on Burnham (1911: 14), it is probable that the adverbial
use came rst and that the conjunction eah developed from it through the
intermediate stage eah e (Mitchell 1985, II: 709).
We have seen in Table 2 that in Early Modern English though and its
emphatic form although were used predominantly as factual concessive sub-
ordinators. It had taken them several centuries to travel thus far along the road
of functional specialization, a process which we know little about. Although had
nearly reached its goal by the end of the Early Modern English period, but it
would take though another several centuries to complete the process, for its
hypothetical concessive use can be found as late as in 1900 (see Visser 1972, II:
905). This process seems to have little, if anything, to do with verb forms. In
Early Modern English it was perfectly normal for the subjunctive to be used to
express factual as well as hypothetical concession. Although there was a general
tendency to use the indicative for factual concession, it was possible to use it to
express hypothetical concession as well, for example:
(46) O Lord! Ill go and put on my Lacd Smock, tho I am whipt till the
Blood run down my Heels fort.
(EModE3 John Vanbrugh, The Complete Works I, 60)
Of course, when the concession is counterfactual, as in (47) below, it is usually
marked by backshifted past or past perfect tense. This feature is shared by both
conditionals and concessives.
(47) He shall neuer scape death on my swordes point,
Though I shoulde be torne therfore ioynt by ioynt.
(EModE1 Nicholas Udall, Roister Doister L. 1145)
4.6 Expressions that help arm the factuality of the consequent situation
The concessive markers we have examined so far all concern some aspect of the
antecedent. Expressions of similarity, continuance and immutability, which help
arm the factuality of the consequent situation in one way or another, also
provide an important source for concessive markers in the form of correlative
conjuncts such as yet and nevertheless.
4.6.1 Yet
Mtzner (1874, III: 360) believes that yet was originally a temporal expression;
it became an adversative particle by denoting that the following thought is still
(notwithstanding) valid, alongside of the preceding one. The OED (s.v. yet, adv.
(adj.) and conj. 1 and 2) seems to think otherwise. Finding it to be of obscure
origin, the OED identies two basic meanings of yet: (i) in addition, or in
continuation; besides, also; further, furthermore, moreover, (ii) implying
continuance from a previous time up to and at the present (or some stated) time,
and believes that its adversative meaning in spite of that, for all that, neverthe-
less, notwithstanding developed from the non-temporal meaning when yet was
used to introduce an additional fact or circumstance which is adverse to, or the
contrary of what would naturally be expected from, that just mentioned (s.v. yet,
adv. (adj.) and conj. 9a). It is worth noting that both meanings (i) and (ii)
proposed by the OED have the sense of continuation or continuance. As continuation
or continuance often implies resistance to interference or adverse circumstances,
106 GUOHUA CHEN
perhaps it is from the sense of continuance that yet developed into a concessive
consequent marker.
When the antecedent is already marked by a concessive marker, the use of
yet in the consequent is an optional extra. Its role as a concessive marker is more
signicant, sometimes vital, when the antecedent is not marked. Very often the
sense of concession, though inherent in the sentence, is not immediately appar-
ent. Without yet, the sentence still allows only a concessive-conditional reading,
but the use of yet immensely facilitates this reading, for example:
(48) Y your Grace wer eligible and undir thempire, yet ye coud not be
chosen Emperor, by cause ye were never Kinge of Romains.
(EModE1 Cuthbert Tunstall, Original Letters I, 137)
In sentences like (49) below, the use of yet is vital to the concessive reading of
the condition. Without it, such instances are likely to lose their concessive force
and to be interpreted as simple conditionals:
(49) This is the end of the Vsurer and his money, if they stay together till
death, yet at last there shall bee a diuision.
(EModE2 Henry Smith, Two Sermons on Of Usurie E2R)
In the Helsinki Corpus the use of yet as a concessive correlative conjunct is not
as common as we might expect. Of the 68 hypothetical concessives introduced
by if, only 10 have yet in the consequent.
4.6.2 Nevertheless
The motivation of the use of nevertheless or its variant forms natheless and
nonetheless as a concessive marker is transparent. By arming that the truth of
the consequent is in no way less valid because of the adverse situation expressed
in the antecedent, it stresses the concessive relation. Its use as a concessive
marker in a conditional sentence is not specically noted in the OED. In the
Helsinki Corpus only one instance is found and in this one instance it is used
together with yet:
(50) And be it further Inacted, That if anye Horse Mare Geldinge Coulte or
Fillie, after Twentie Dayes next ensuynge thende of this Session of
Parliament, shalbe stolen, and after shalbe soulde in open Fayre or
Markett, and the same Sale shalbe used in all Poynt
~
and Circumstaunc
~
as aforesaide, that yet nevertheles the Sale of any suche Horse Mare
Geldinge Coulte or Fillie, within Sixe Monethes next after the Fellonye
done, shall not take awaye the P
~
pertie of the Owner from whom the
same was stolen. (EModE2 The Statutes of the Realm IV, 811)
5. Clause order and hypothetical concession
While accepting that an if-clause preceding the consequent may have a conces-
sive reading, Haiman (1986: 221222) thinks that such concessive use of if is
comparatively rare. He observes that in English, at least, concessive conditionals
are usually doubly marked: either by the presence of the focus marker even,
itself a diacritic, or by clause inversion, that is, by inverting the order of
antecedent and consequent. Although he does not go so far as to allege that
clause inversion is a marker of concession, he believes that parenthetical
conditionals like Greetings from your aectionate, if absentminded, son are
invariably concessive and owe this meaning to their marked position rather than
their supercial morphology. Haiman, of course, is talking about present-day
English. In Early Modern English the predominant clause order for hypothetical
concession is antecedent +consequent. But I have noticed a notable shift toward
clause-order inversion. As in present-day English, there are three clause orders
in Early Modern English hypothetical concessives: (i) antecedent + consequent
(A+C); (ii) consequent + antecedent (C+A); and (iii) antecedent embedded in
consequent (C+A+c). When the antecedent is embedded in the consequent, it
is the so-called parenthetical conditional clause, for example:
(51) I made the Experiment also at diering times, and with some months,
if not rather years, of interval, but with the like success.
From Table 3 we can see that in the Helsinki Corpus A+C is the predominant
clause order for hypothetical concessives, accounting for 60%; however, there is
a visible shift from A+C to non-A+C order. In EModE3 non-A+C order even
outnumbers A+C order by 2 to 1. This is due mainly to the surge of parentheti-
cal conditionals.
Table 3. Distribution of dierent clause orders of hypothetical concessives in the three sub-
periods of the Helsinki Corpus
Clause order EModE1 EModE2 EModE3 Total
A+C
C+A
C+A+c
18
06
33
14
02
09
08
10
060
028
012
Total 24 49 27 100
108 GUOHUA CHEN
6. Conclusion
The grammaticalization of concessive markers is motivated by the need to
emphasise or express explicitly some aspect of the semantic and pragmatic
properties of the concessive sentence. Concessive markers derive from a wide
variety of sources. Although conditional markers are one of the sources for
hypothetical concessive markers, there is no evidence in English to testify that
some of them have developed into factual concessive markers. In Early Modern
English the majority of the concessive markers did not distinguish between
factual and hypothetical concessions, though some of them, such as (al)though
and albeit, were used predominantly as factual concessive markers and some
others, such as if, were used predominantly as hypothetical concessive markers.
If need be, factual and hypothetical concessions could be explicitly marked. To
mark factual concession, one could use for all that and notwithstanding, etc.; to
mark hypothetical concessive one could use SV inversion + never so or a
concessive conjunct like yet in the consequent of a conditional sentence. But
these expressions, being not fully grammaticalized, were not used very frequently
in such functions. In the great majority of cases people would rather use the
more ambiguous (al)though for the expression of factual concession and the
more ambiguous bare if for the expression of hypothetical concession, feeling
content that what they meant was suciently clear from the context. What
caused them to change their mind remains a mystery.
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to Merja Kyt for kindly arranging for me to use the Early Modern English section of
the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts for this study and to Olga Fischer, Dieter Stein and the three
anonymous reviewers for their comments on the earlier versions of this paper.
Notes
1. The two terms are adapted from Quirk et al. (1985: 10991102), where the original terms are
universal conditional-concessiveclause and alternativeconditional-concessiveclause, the former
referring to clauses typically marked by however, whatever and so on, the latter to clauses
typically marked by whether or. For lack of space the present paper does not cover these
two types of concessives.
2. This section of the corpus consists of three sub-sections EModE1 (15001570), EModE2
(15701640) and EModE3 (16401710). The three sub-sections are comparable in size and
genre make-up except that EModE3, unlike EModE1 and EModE2, contains no Bible text. To
ensure full comparability among the three sub-sections, I have deleted the Bible texts from
EModE1 and EModE2 in the version of the corpus I use for this study. In addition, for a
reason that has nothing to do with the purpose of the present investigation, I have replaced
samples of Shakespeares The Merry Wives of Windsor in EModE2 with excerpts of roughly the
same length from Ben Jonsons Every Man in his Humour. For a detailed description of the
corpus, see Kyt (1991).
3. Haiman (1986: 220224) maintains, however, that it is impossible for a paratactic structure to
have a concessive reading.
4. The sentences in (2)(3) are based on Quirk et al. (1985: 644).
5. The sentences in (4) are based on Quirk et al. (1985: 1099).
6. When the focusing particle even of a hypothetical concessive sentence focuses on only one part
of the antecedent the truth of the consequent depends on that of the antecedent. See Knig
(1986: 232).
7. The earliest instance of even if recorded in the OED is s.v. poetess: 1748 Lady Luxborough,
Let. to Shenstone 28 Apr., I am no Poetess; which reproachful name I would avoid, even if I
were capable of acquiring it.; its earliest use cited s.v. even, adv. is dated 1824.
8. All examples with references beginning with EModE are from the Helsinki Corpus (for full
reference of the sources, see Kyt 1991), others beginning with dates are from the OED.
9. In Knigs terminology, concessive sentence proper means factual concessive sentence and
concessive connective means factual concessive connective.
10. The only example Knig (1988: 152) oers is the Norwegian selv om.
References
Burnham, J. M. 1911. Concessive Constructions in Old English Prose [Yale Studies in
English 39]. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Campbell, A. 1956. Review of Quirk 1954. Review of English Studies 7: 6468.
Chen, G. 1996. Conditional sentences in early Modern English: A study in grammatical-
ization. Ph.D dissertation, Faculty of English, University of Cambridge.
Comrie, B. 1986. Conditionals: A typology. In On Conditionals, E. C. Traugott, A. ter
Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly and Ch. A. Ferguson (eds), 7799. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fischer, O. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language,
10661476, vol. II, N. Blake (ed.), 207408. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Haiman, J. 1986. Constraints on the form and meaning of the protasis. In On Condition-
als, E. C. Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly and Ch. A. Ferguson (eds),
215227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, M. 1988. Concessive clause in English and Romance. In Clause Combining in
Grammar and Discourse, J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds), 7199. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
110 GUOHUA CHEN
University Press.
Knig, E. 1985. On the history of concessive connectives in English: Diachronic and
synchronic evidence. Lingua 66: 119.
Knig, E. 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of
contrast, overlap and neutralization. In On Conditionals, E. C. Traugott, A. ter
Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly and Ch. A. Ferguson (eds), 229246. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Knig, E. 1988. Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross-linguistic
regularities and pragmatic principles. In Explaining language universals, J. A.
Hawkins (ed.), 145166. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Knig, E. 1991. Concessive relation as the dual of causal relations. In Semantic
Universals and Universal Semantics, D. Zaeerer (ed.), 190209. Berlin: Foris
Publications.
Knig, E. 1992. From discourse to syntax: The case of concessive conditionals. In Who
Climbs the Grammar Tree, R. Tracy (ed.), 423434. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Kyt, M. 1991. Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts.
Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.
Leuschner, T. 1998. At the boundaries of grammaticalization: What interrogatives are
doing in concessive conditionals. In The Limits of Grammaticalization, A. Giacalone
Ramat and P. J. Hopper (eds), 159187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mtzner, E. 1874. An English Grammar: Methodical, Analytical, and Historical, trans.
from the German by Clair James Grece, 3 vols. London: John Murray.
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English Syntax, vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Poutsma, H. 1960. A Grammar of Late Modern English, 5 vols. Tokyo: Senjo [1928].
Quirk, R. 1954. The Concessive Relation in Old English Poetry [Yale Studies in English
124]. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Thompson, S. A. and Longacre, R. E. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Language Typology
and Syntactic Description, vol. II, T. Shopen (ed.), 171234. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Traugott, E. C. 1985. Conditional markers. In Iconicity in Syntax, J. Haiman (ed.),
289307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. and Knig, E. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization
revisited. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol.1, E. C. Traugott and B. Heine
(eds), 189218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van de Auwera, J. 1986. Conditionals and speech acts. In On Conditionals, E. C.
Traugott, A. ter Meulen, J. Snitzer Reilly and Ch. A. Ferguson (eds), 197214.
Visser, F. T. 1972. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, vol. II. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.
Combining English auxiliaries
David Denison
The whole entirely depends, added my father, in a
low voice, upon the auxiliary verbs, Mr Yorick.
Laurence Sterne, Tristram Shandy V.xlii
1. Introduction
The processes of grammaticalisation by which lexical verbs turned into auxilia-
ries in English raise a number of interesting questions, many of them already
studied in depth. Grammaticalisation involves semantic and syntactic and
sometimes morphological change, as well as changes of distribution, and the
changes need not be simultaneous.
In this paper I wish to explore the dating and signicance of grammatical-
isation of certain English auxiliaries by looking at their combinatory possibilities.
The sequencing and co-occurrence constraints on the present-day auxiliaries are
among the most systematic areas of English syntax, if we allow ourselves to
leave aside marginal and dialectal forms. Some combinations once possible have
become ungrammatical, while other combinations have come into existence
during the period of recorded history, not always as soon as might have been
predicted from the behaviour of the individual auxiliaries. These facts allow us
to infer dates for grammaticalisation certainly of the progressive and perhaps of
other auxiliaries too.
The auxiliary system of present-day English in tensed, nite clauses can be
represented as follows:
(1) (Modal) (Perfect) (Progressive) (Passive)
112 DAVID DENISON
The four slots come in a xed relative order. Each slot can be lled or not,
independently. If none is lled, then the dummy auxiliary bo may appear as sole
auxiliary; whether bo is necessary, optional, or forbidden depends on the clause
type and the lexical verb.
All of this is familiar and of course oversimplied, but it will serve the
purpose adequately for now. There are pros and cons in using a grammatical
label like perfect rather than a lexical item like n:vr. The former allows us to
generalise across dierent possible exponents of a slot, such as n:vr, nr or Old
English vrob:N for the perfect, the latter to generalise across dierent uses
of a particular verb notably nr. I shall use both (and see also 4.3 below).
With the possible exception of Passive, all of these auxiliaries form
periphrases with a lexical verb in the sense that the combination Aux + V
commutes with the simple verb V. Cross-linguistically it is probably justiable
to treat passive Aux +V as a periphrasis too, but for English especially after
the demise of the unique inectional passive of n:1:N be called the label
is less than ideal. For the reason that follows, however, it will be convenient to
retain passives in the denition.
These auxiliaries form probably the most orderly and systematic area of
English syntax. It is a truism that each of the items which can serve as an
auxiliary is a development historically speaking out of some full-verb use,
and it is reasonable to call all of them grammaticalised. (I shall ignore the
main-verb analyses of present-day English auxiliaries.) There are various grounds
for this: the facts that they are closed-class items, virtually without restriction as
to the lexical verbs they can collocate with (though this is less true of nr than of
other auxiliaries), mostly without argument structure of their own, morphologi-
cally odd, semantically general in having senses to do with tense or aspect or at
least with sentence modication (epistemic meaning, etc.), and so on. But
grammaticalisation is alternatively a diachronic process or a synchronic gradient,
and it is a moot point how far into the process or how far along the gradient a
verb has to go before it can be said to be grammaticalised. Consider perfect
n:vr in diachronic terms. The English perfect is generally regarded as a
development by reanalysis of structures involving possessive n:vr. Contrast (2)
and (3), for example:
(2) OE Bede 4 23.328.6
onne hbbe we begen fet gescode
then have we both feet shod(x:sc.:cc.ii)
suie untllice
very blamelessly
COMBINING ENGLISH AUXILIARIES 113
(3) OE Or 132.17
Nu ic hbbe gesd hu
now I have said how
In rare examples of the older type like (2), can be a transitive lexical verb
meaning possess, the word order may involve a sentence brace in which the NP
which is object of precedes the participle, and the participle is an
object predicative which may carry adjectival inection. In (3), however,
cannot mean possess, and in this particular case there is no object and no
adjectival agreement on the participle. Various stages of development of the
perfect are potentially relevant:
(A) when the perfect became available for any lexical verb which did not
conjugate with (late Old English?)
(B) when it had come to be a pure tense equivalent (late Old English?)
(C) when it had developed approximately its present-day meaning (seventeenth
century?) which would have involved the loss of B
(D) when it became available for every non-auxiliary verb (late Modern English)
I am content to regard A as indicating the stage when perfect had become
an auxiliary verb, since it suggests that was being used transparently, i.e.
without an argument structure or selectional restrictions of its own. It had been
reached when perfect occurred with transitive participles meaning distri-
buted, lost, eaten meanings incompatible with possession or with
intransitive verbs, or with less than fully transitive verbs, as in (3). As discussed
in Denison (1993: 346348), word order and participial inection are not in
themselves reliable indicators of the syntactic status of possible perfects.
For other auxiliaries all sorts of evidence of grammaticalisation may be used.
In this paper I shall concentrate on one seemingly simple source of evi-
dence: the combinatory possibilities of (potential) auxiliaries. As we shall see,
combinations of such verbs may provide evidence that one of them usually
the rst but exceptionally the second has been grammaticalised with auxiliary
status, or conversely that the second remains ungrammaticalised. The analysis of
each case is dierent. Exhaustive coverage is not aimed at. I begin with what
from a present-day English point of view looks like the repetition of a slot, then
look at some other combinations.
114 DAVID DENISON
2. Doubling of auxiliaries
2.1 Double bo
Late in the Middle English period, and especially in the works of Caxton,
frequent use was made of a double bo construction:
(4) 1490 Caxton Prol.Eneydos 108.14
And also my lorde abbot of westmynster
and also my lord Abbot of Westminster
ded do shewe to me late certayn euydences
did do show to me recently certain pieces-of-evidence
wryton in olde englysshe
written in old English
and also my lord, the Abbot of Westminster, had me shown recent-
ly certain pieces of evidence written in ancient English
(In some examples e.g. (60) below either the rst or the second verb is not
bo but ir1 or x:xr.) I follow Ellegrd (1953: 110115) in reading did do
examples as an attempt to mark causative meaning at a time when the periphrasis
was on the increase and simple causative use of bo open to misunderstanding.
If, as I believe, periphrastic bo was a development of causative bo (Denison
1985a, 1993), examples like (4) provide evidence of the grammaticalisation of
the bo-periphrasis as a transparent auxiliary, since two consecutive causatives
with empty argument slots would be both redundant and highly opaque. Thus the
rst bo is periphrastic; the second, untensed, is causative.
2.2 Double modals
Double modals are a much-tilled eld and I shall not spend long on them here.
Untensed forms of modals are dealt with by Visser in his (19631973:
16491651, 16841687, 17221723, 1839, 2042, 2134),
1
with further Middle
English examples in Ogura (1993, 1998) and discussion in Nagle (1993, 1995).
Some examples:
(5) c1180 Orm. 2958
att I shall cunnenn cwemenn Godd
that I shall have-ability(iNr) please(iNr) God
that I shall have the ability to please God
(6) c1450 Pilgr.LM(Cmb) 1.467
And whan ye wole go withoute me
and when you will go without me [sc. Reason]
ye shul wel mown avaunte yow
you shall well be-able-to be-boastful
and when you wish to go without me you shall certainly be able to
be boastful
(7) (c1463) Paston 66.16
and wythowte I knowe e serteynt
and unless I know the truth
I chal not conne answere hym.
I shall not be-able-to answer him
and without knowing the truth I shall not be able to answer him.
(8) c1483(?a1480) Caxton, Dialogues 3.37
Who this booke shall wylle lerne
he-who this book shall wish learn
He who wishes to master this book
(9) 1532 Cranmer Let. in Misc.Writ.(Parker Soc.) II.233
I fear that the emperor will depart thence, before my letters shall may
come unto your graces hands.
A double modal implies that the second modal is in the innitive, which is also
the case in the non-nite clause of (10):
(10) 1533 More, Wks. IX 84.4 [885 C1]
some waye y
t
[= at =that: D.D.] appered at y
e
[= the] rste to mow
stande the realme in great stede
The modal in the innitive is non-epistemic (only examples (6), (9) and (10)
above show any possibility of an epistemic interpretation). This is consistent with
Planks observation (1984: 310, 314) that non-modal syntax and morphology in
modal verbs (taking of direct objects, untensed forms) has always been associat-
ed with non-modal semantics. The double modal construction in historical texts
therefore suggests that the second modal was not grammaticalised; I am unable
to deduce anything about the rst modal. In later English double modals are
conned to dialects of northern and Scots English, plus (later still) certain south-
eastern American dialects (Montgomery 1989; Montgomery and Nagle 1994 [for
1993]; de la Cruz 1995). Again the second modal is generally root rather than
epistemic (Nagle 1994: 205206), though futurity, which does occur as second
modal, is not so obviously to me at least a root meaning. On the relation-
116 DAVID DENISON
ship between future meaning and (other) kinds of modality see Bybee, Pagliuca
and Perkins (1991, esp. 2425).
2.3 Double perfect
There are several ways in which a double perfect can be formed. One has been
common in English for centuries, though it is unclear whether it has ever attained the
level of standard usage. It depends on the notion of unrealised action or unreality.
2.3.1 Unreality
A correlation has developed between unrealised action and the use of the
perfect in certain contexts. Some examples are unreal conditionals, where
may appear in the protasis, the apodosis, or both, but the usage is not conned
to conditionals:
(11) c1230 (?a1200) Ancr. 13b.24
hwa se hefde iseid to eue A eue
anyone who had said to Eve O Eve
went te awei , hwet hefde ha iondsweret?
turn yourself away what had she answered
If anyone had said to Eve O Eve, turn away What would
she have answered?
(12) (1448) Paston 128.21
and told here at e had sergyd to a fownd
and told her that you had searched to have found
wrytyng er-of and e kwd non fynd in non wyse.
writing thereof and you could none nd in no way
and told her you had gone searching to nd written evidence of
it, and you could not nd any anywhere
(13) (1478) Let.Cely 34.5
and thay spake to me, and desyryd to haue had iij sarpelers
2
and they spoke to me and desired to have had 3 bales (of wool)
and they spoke to me and asked to have three bales
(14) 1660 Pepys, Diary I 102.18 (3 Apr)
This day came the Lieutenant of the Swiftsure (who was sent by my
Lord to Hastings, one of the Cinque ports, to have got Mr. Edw.
Mountagu to have been one of their burgesses); but could not, for they
were all promised before.
(15) 1660 Pepys, Diary I 216.27 (7 Aug)
Here I endeavoured to have looked out Jane that formerly lived at Dr
Williams at Cambrige, whom I had long thought to live at present
here; but I found myself in an errour, meeting one in the place where
I expected to have found her, but she proves not she, though very like her.
(16) 1667 Pepys, Diary VIII 446.5 (23 Sep)
the glass was so clear that she thought it had been open, and so run
[: D.D.] her head through the glass and cut all her forehead.
Many of Vissers examples of + past participle fall into the category of
unrealised action; see especially his (19631973: 20302050, 21542156, 2188).
A few of his types begin with isolated late Old English instances, but most of them
did not appear until Middle English.
The prescriptive tradition frowns upon some of the patterns with double use of
(e.g. would have liked to have gone), even though each pair of adjacent verbs
conforms to the morphosyntax of verbal groups in standard English. However, the
tendency to use may even be strong enough to produce two adjacent instances
(ignoring non-verbs) of perfect , a pairing which certainly contravenes what is
now a clear rule in the standard language:
(17) a1425 Dial. Reason & A. 9.2
Hadde neuere inrmite haue asailed Job &
had never inrmity have assailed Job and
Tobye: here holinesse hadde not it be fully opened.
Tobias their holiness had not yet been fully revealed
If inrmity had never assailed Job and Tobias, their holiness would not
yet have been fully revealed.
(18) (1446) Paston 16.21
the valew of the heye, yf
the value of the hay if
it
it [sc. a meadow not cultivated in good time]
had well a be dite.
had well have been cultivated
the value of the hay, if the meadow had been properly cultivated
(19) 1837 Dickens, Pickwick xxvi.393
Well, I raly would not ha believed it, unless I had ha happened to
ha been here! said Mrs. Sanders.
118 DAVID DENISON
(20) 1848 Dickens, Dombey xxxii.445
Little Dombey was my friend at old Blimbers, and would have been
now, if hed have lived.
(21) 1987 Wolfe, Bonre xix.409
I wish we hadnta moved so fast with the sonofabitch.
The syntagm seen in the last clause of (20) is variously expanded as had have
Ved and would have Ved, both by syntacticians and in attested instances, though
it is commonest with contracted d for the rst verb. See Visser (19631973:
2157), Wekker (1987), and also some comments in Denison (1992,
1998: 140142).
Suppose we take the rst option and treat the construction as involving
double n:vr (certainly correct for (21)). One analysis would treat the rst n:vr
as modal, since it appears to be followed by an innitive. Example (22) shows
how modal n:vr normally behaves:
(22) Before an X-ray they have to have gone without food for a whole day.
Examples like (21) would therefore be anomalous in lacking an obligation sense
and in not requiring to. An alternative analysis of (20)(21), which I prefer, takes
both n:vrs as perfect, the rst marking anteriority (central use of the perfect)
and the second unreality (secondary use): each function is separately realised by
a grammaticalised form of n:vr. The morphological oddity then consists in the
fact that the second auxiliary is an innitive rather than a past participle despite
being in the n:vr perfect, rather as Dutch auxiliaries followed by an innitive
behave when they themselves have a perfect auxiliary (Geerts et al.
1984: 523525):
(23) Ik had het moeten zien.
I had it must(iNr for i:s1.i:1) see(iNr)
I ought to have seen it.
(24) Ik ben wezen kijken.
I am be(iNr
3
for i:s1.i:1) look(iNr)
I have been to have a look.
In the English double n:vr pattern we might expect to nd forms where the
second auxiliary is a past participle:
(20) *If hed had lived /*If hedd lived
(21) *I wish we hadnt had moved so fast
The usual handbooks do not mention any, but Visser (19461956: 710b) has
two somewhat similar examples:
(25) 1442 Let.Bekynton II. 213
He might never have had escaped.
(26) 1535 Joye, Apol. Tindale(Arb.) 30
He wold neuer haue had so farre
he would never have had so far
swaruen from his principal, as
swerved from his principle as
He would never have strayed so far from his principle, as
But (25)(26) are clearly most unusual (and (25), with its modern spelling,
suspicious). Why so rare? Among the reasons may be:
(A) phonetic awkwardness and/or avoidance of repetition
(B) residue of historical confusion in d of had and would, the latter of which
would have collocated with an innitive, not a past participle
(C) possible association of innitival rather than other forms of with
unreality
Factor B could only be relevant for examples from around 1600 onwards, when
contracted auxiliaries are rst recorded. Factor C might be a consequence of the
frequent use of a modal in unreal clauses, especially with the obsolescence of the
non-modal type seen in (11).
It is convenient to mention here rather than in the sections on combina-
tions of dierent auxiliaries two further pieces of evidence that suggest that
innitival have is undergoing further grammaticalisation. One is word order
evidence that suggests that strings like would have or wouldve are increasingly
being treated as uninterruptable chunks. The rst example below is among
many gathered by Boyland (1998: 3):
(27) What wouldve you done?
(28) 1961 Brown Corpus, Belles Lettres G65:85
a sentiment he would have probably denied
(29) 1992 A. Maupin, Maybe the Moon xv.225
I shouldve never went on a stupid blind date. They never work out.
Then there is the stressed form of created from the unstressed enclitic ve:
120 DAVID DENISON
(30) 1819 Keats, Letters 149 p. 380 (5 Sep.)
Had I known of your illness I should not of written in such ery phrase
in my rst Letter.
(31) 1992 D. Tartt, Secret History ii.57
If Id of been the bartender at the Oak Room he wouldnt have noticed.
In (30), the earliest example I have found, the of spelling for have occurs in the
apodosis of a conditional which is otherwise standard; (31) draws attention to
double n:vr in a protasis that accompanies a wholly standard apodosis. Many
speakers thus apparently fail to see any connection between a noninitial, inni-
tival occurrence of n:vr in a verbal group and the normal auxiliary.
2.3.2 Perfect n:vr +perfect nr
There is actually an occasional n:vr perfect of the nr perfect (Visser 19631973:
2162)! Rydn and Brorstrm (1987: 25) nd it obvious that this variant
emerged to satisfy a need for stressing the resultative aspect more emphatically
than the be +P[ast ]P[articiple] construction was capable of at the time:
(32) a1400(a1325) Cursor 7074
Bot als e tan als
but as-if the one [sc. half] as
be at toer | Of al is werld had risen bene
against the other of all this world had risen been
but as if one half of this world had been risen against the other
(33) (modern)
Shes been gone a long time.
Visser (19461956: 682) suggests that the nr-perfect gradually got the
character of copula nr + adjective, especially when the collocation was not
accompanied by verbal adjuncts. This would then have allowed the normal
conjugation of (copula) nr to operate. Vissers suggested reanalysis would be the
exact converse of grammaticalisation, and it is simpler to assume that the
nr-perfect never was fully grammaticalised.
2.4 Double progressive?
Actually I have no examples of the double progressive, that is, doubling of
progressive nr, but perhaps it is relevant to mention the doubling of -ing, even
though the rst -ing should not be regarded as progressive, since verbs like
xNov, ovN which resist the progressive have -ing forms in non-nite clauses.
The syntagm being +Ving should occur when a nite progressive is turned into
a gerundial or present participial construction, as in
(34) 1660 Pepys, Diary I 302.21 (26 Nov)
I being now making my new door into the entry,
The being + Ving pattern had some currency at least from the mid-sixteenth
century to the early nineteenth (Denison 1985b, 1993: 394395, 411 n. 8). Modern
grammars claim it to be impossible in present-day English. The gap is an odd
one. Consider the following pairs, where a nite clause in the (a) sentence is
turned into a non-nite clause in (b) by altering the rst verb to an -ing:
(35) a. Jim teaches/taught ve new courses.
b. Teaching ve new courses makes it easier.
(36) a. Jim has/had taught these courses before.
b. Having taught these courses before makes it easier.
(37) a. Jim has/had been teaching these courses for some time.
b. Having been teaching these courses for some time makes it
easier.
(38) a. Jim is/was teaching ve new courses.
b. *Being teaching ve new courses makes it easier.
There is now a systemic gap at (38b), a gap, furthermore, which has actually
opened up where previously the paradigm was complete.
4
There are some glorious examples which combine being + Ving with
passival usage (see 3.3.2 below):
(39) 1676 Prideaux, Letters 50.4
a great deal of mony beeing now expendeing on St. Marys
(40) 1774 Woodforde, Diary I 125.12 (13 Mar)
I talked with him pretty home [directly] about matters being so long
doing .
See Denison (1993: 394395, 440443) for more detail, where an attempt is
made to link the loss of the being+Ving pattern to a reanalysis and grammatica-
lisation of progressive .
2.5 Double passive?
The following examples appear to combine passive and passive in a
single syntagm:
122 DAVID DENISON
(41) 1736 Butler Anal. i. iii
These hopes and fears cannot be got rid of by great part of the
world.
(42) 1810 Syd. Smith Wks. (1850) 183
Nor is this conceit very easily and speedily gotten rid of.
Indeed the construction of (41)(42) is still wholly grammatical.
I assume that these apparent double passives were formed in the following
steps:
(43) A neat solution rids us of the problem.
(44) a. We are rid of the problem.
b. We get rid of the problem.
(45) The problem is got rid of.
That is, (44a, b) were possible passives of (43), but either could be interpreted as
containing a statal AP rid of the problem, with / taken as ergative and the
whole clause as active. (It is impossible to assign historical priority between
active and passive readings.) Then (44b) which would also have had an
overall dynamic meaning in the active reading and even perhaps an agentive role
for we was open to reanalysis as containing a group-verb rid of. This is
lexicalisation but not grammaticalisation. Only then could a new prepositional
passive be formed from it, in the same way as from care of or paid
to. In this way, and because the semantic role of the problem is Patient, we can
explain how (45) is possible but the double passives (46)(48) are not:
(46) *The problem is been rid of. ( (44a))
(47) *A ride is got taken for. (He gets taken for a ride.)
(48) *Free tickets were got given us. (We got given free tickets.)
If this account is correct it suggests that the apparent -passive (44b) was not
(exclusively) perceived as the passive turn of (43).
5
Compare the dual reading of
has been gone, with as auxiliary or as copula (2.3.2 above).
3. Other combinations of auxiliaries
3.1 Auxiliary +
In most accounts of standard present-day English, the dummy auxiliary is
presented as incompatible with any other auxiliary verb, though there may be
mention of its occurrence with marginal auxiliaries, as for instance in didnt used
to V. We now look at some constructions, older and newer, where appears
to collocate with a central auxiliary. First we look at instances where
precedes . Then we investigate cases where follows another verb, where it
will necessarily be untensed.
3.1.1 Tensed +
The dummy auxiliary does not co-occur with except in imperatives, and
imperative do and dont are anyway arguably dierent from the usual dummy
auxiliary. Sporadically, however, one does nd the passive auxiliary in the
innitive, be after tensed , usually interrupted by other material:
(49) 1713 J. Swift, L-19, Vol. II, Letter LXI, p. 634
Parvisol has sent me a Bill of 50ll. as I orderd him; wch I hope will
serve me & bring me over, pray Gd []
6
does not be delayd for it; but
I have had very little from him this long time.
(50) 1998 letter, Oldham Evening Chronicle p. 4 (23 Nov.)
Did littering the streets not once be considered breaking the law?
(51) 1998 Oldham Evening Chronicle p. 4 (16 Dec.)
Does everyone get cards from others and be obliged to say, No
idea who they are?
(52) 1995 att. D.D., Gerald Hammond
We agree that particular students do be ogged.
One might include here examples like:
(53) 1865 Arnold, L-33 pp. 2589
I do not feel quite certain that little Tom will not be more reconciled to
school by the end of the week. If he does not, however, I suppose you
cannot come to Italy.
involving substitute rather than periphrastic auxiliary . Mistakes or
anacolutha such examples may be, but they seem to suggest the beginnings of an
124 DAVID DENISON
invariant passive auxiliary closely tied to its participle. Related to this is a
combination of with lexical :
(54) If you dont be careful, youll
(55) 1888 A. T. Ritchie, L-67, letter, p. 207
I read your letter to-day and I could have cried to think you sometimes
feel so far away, but one thing you need never feel, that you dont live
and talk and be here just as much as if you were.
(56) 1995 letter, Oldham Evening Chronicle 26/6 (24 Jan.)
If the taxi driver was having a dig at me why didnt he stop
and be a witness?
which may not yet be generally acceptable but which occur in speech with
reasonable frequency. The quasi-imperative Why dont you be ? construction
is now fully accepted in standard:
(57) 1920 Wharton, Age of Innocence xiv.118
Whos they? Why dont you all get together and be they your-
selves?
The typical syntactic contexts for tensed + are non-assertive, frequently
both negative and either interrogative, quasi-imperative, or conditional. If is
lexical, it usually forms a nonstative group-verb with its complement.
3.1.2 Other auxiliaries +untensed
Periphrastic in present-day English has no untensed forms, but in the period
when the periphrasis was being grammaticalised there were occasional excep-
tions. Here are some reasonably likely examples of innitive and past participle
periphrastic prior to 1500:
(58) (c1300) Havelok 1747
He bad him Hauelok wel yemen and
he bade him Havelok well look-after and
his wif, | And wel do wayten al the nith
his wife and well do watch-over all the night
He asked him to look after Havelok and his wife well and to
guard them well all night.
(59) a1400(a1325) Cursor 2818
e angls badd loth do him ee.
the angels bade Lot do him ee
(60) (c1395) Chaucer CT.Sq. V.45
He leet the feeste of his nativitee | Doon
he had the feast of his nativity do
cryen thurghout Sarray his citee.
cry throughout Tzarev his city
He had the feast of his birthday announced throughout his city of
Tzarev.
(61) ?c1425(?c1400) Loll.Serm. 2.592
at resenable men schul anne do
that rational men shall then do
make hem redy aen e comynge of e Lord.
make themselves ready for the coming of the Lord
(62) (?1456) Paston 558.12
The parson wyth yow shall do well
the person with you shall do() well
sort my maister evidenses
sort my masters pieces-of-evidence
The person with you will certainly sort my masters evidence for him
(63) ?a1475 Ludus C. 283.339
and is e knowe now All and haue don
and this you know now all and have done
here | at it stant in e lond of galelye.
hear that it stands in the land of Galilee
(64) a1500 Partenay 2367
behold | ho shall doo gouerne And rule this contre
behold who shall do govern and rule this country
See further Visser (19631973: 1414a, 2022, 2133). (Examples (58)(60)
involve innitival as complement to a causative or other non-auxiliary verb.)
This material provides some weak evidence for dierentiating phases of
grammaticalisation of (Denison 1985a: 4.6), as examples like (59) and (64)
seem to show uses of +innitive which are contextually like the periphrasis
in excluding an intermediary (subject of =subject of lexical verb), and yet
which precede the restriction to tensed forms which periphrastic and the
modals later underwent in standard English.
The past participle construction gained some vogue in sixteenth-century
Scottish poetry, and we nd examples like (65) as well as examples of the
present participle and innitive of periphrastic :
126 DAVID DENISON
(65) 1568(150020) Dunbar Poems 55.13
Thow that hes lang done
you that have long done
Venus lawis teiche
Venuss laws teach
Some Scots dialects even now allow untensed forms of modal verbs like c:N
(2.2 above), and it seems likely that the untensed use of bo must be tied in
with this. If some Scots dialects have been able to use periphrastic bo with
fewer restrictions than other varieties of English, it seems almost paradoxical that
the Scotch language used periphrastic do much more sparingly than the
dialects South of the Humber even in the 16th and 17th centuries (Ellegrd
1953: 46, and cf. 164, 200n., 207n.). But perhaps there is no paradox: if these are
the same dialects which allow untensed modals, then they rely less on the
operator~non-operator distinction which goes hand-in-glove with periphrastic bo.
Arguably they show a less advanced stage of grammaticalisation than that
reached by bo in standard Modern English.
3.2 Perfect n:vr +passive nr
Visser claims that perfect + passive nr can be traced back to Old English
(19631973: 2161), citing the following examples:
(66) Lk(WSCp) 12.50
Ic hbbe on fulluhte beon gefullod.
I have in baptism been/(to) be baptised
Lat.: baptisma autem habeo baptizari
(67) a1225(?a1200) Trin.Hom. 59.14
feren it is at we and ure heldrene
afar it is that we and our ancestors
habb ben turnd fro him.
have been turned from him
It is long since that we and our ancestors have been turned away
from him.
But Mitchell (1985: 753 n. 188) rejects (66) as containing innitival, not
participial, beon, and (67) as being Middle English. And indeed Visser has a
respectable collection of examples from early Middle English onwards:
(68) c1180 Orm. 18232
& forr att Crist r hade ben
and because Christ earlier had been
Fullhtnedd att tere mastre
baptised by their master
(69) c1230(?a1200) Ancr. 86b.28
ef ich hefde ibeon akeast wi strenge.
if I had been overthrown by force
The perfect auxiliary is always , which is interesting.
7
Three reasons
suggest themselves:
(A) passive was not yet grammaticalised
(B) the -perfect was already recessive
(C) some restriction on double
Of these, A seems most cogent for early Middle English, giving a terminus a quo
for the grammaticalisation of the passive. There is no independent evidence that
passive was grammaticalised at that time. Suppose to the contrary that it
already had been. A syntagm consisting of grammaticalised passive + past
participle would arguably have been a mutative intransitive, precisely the sort of
syntagm liable to form its perfect with . Since that did not happen, the
likelihood is that passive was still an ungrammaticalised main verb. By the
time it did become grammaticalised, the productive way to form a perfect was
with , perfect being by then recessive factor B. Further evidence that
passive was indistinguishable from main verb in early English is that main
verb has likewise never formed a perfect with auxiliary , but rather
since very late Old English always with .
Instead of + been + past participle or indeed the non-occurring * +
been +past participle, one often nds just +past participle:
(70) (a1387) Trev.Higd. I 1.xxiv.235.20
And whan e ymage was made,
and when the image was made
hem semede at e legges were to feble
them() seemed that the legs were too weak
(71) 1623(1606) Shakespeare, Mac IV.iii.204
Your Castle is surprizd; your Wife, and Babes | Sauagely slaughterd:
(72) 1853 Dickens, Bleak House lv.814
That the visitors have been here this morning to make money of it.
And that the money is made, or making.
128 DAVID DENISON
For discussion, references and further examples see Visser (19631973: 1909),
Denison (1998: 183184). It is possible that the increased tendency in recent
years to use n:vr +been+past participle (had been made, has been surprised) for
the notion of current relevance in such sentences may follow from the loss of the
n:vr perfect as a simple tense equivalent (=stage C in the grammaticalisation
of the perfect in 1 above). The last clause of example (72) actually contrasts
two forms which would both now be inappropriate here, the non-perfect passive
and the passival (3.3.2 below); in present-day English it might read And that the
money has been, or is being, made. And in example (73) it is unclear whether
were made should be modernised as present-day English had been made or
were being made:
(73) 1848 Cottle, Reminiscences of Coleridge and Southey p. 434
Independently of which, an idea had become prevalent amongst the
crowdof aicted, that they were merely made the subjects of experiment,
which thinned the ranks of the old applicants, and intimidated new.
I have noticed one example of perfect + passive vc1nr, (74) Visser has
some Old English examples too in his 2166 and here the perfect auxiliary
is indeed nr, as it is with all main-verb uses of vc1nr too, e.g. (75)(76):
(74) c1180 Orm. 19559
n himm, att wass att Sannt Johan Bapptisste
against him that was at Saint John Baptist
wurrenn fullhtnedd
become(i:s1.i:1) baptised
against him that had been baptised by John the Baptist
(75) c1180 Orm. 3914
Annd Godess enngless wrenn a Well swie glade
and Gods angels were then well very glad
wurrenn | O att, tatt Godd wass wurrenn mann
become(i:s1.i:1) concerning that that God was become man
and the angels of God had then become very glad of the fact that
God had become man
(76) c1180 Orm. 2272
Forr att nass nfrr wurrenn,
for that not-was never-before happened
For it had never happened before that
There is one context in present-day English, the strange existential of (77)
mentioned by Lako (1987: 562565), where the auxiliary before a passive
seems to hover between and :
(77) Theres a man been shot.
(78) A man has been shot.
(79) a. Theres a man in the garden.
b. Theres some men in the garden.
c. Theres been an accident.
In Lakos analysis, s in (77) is a contraction of perfect has (cf. (78)), not is,
but cannot be used in uncontracted form a rational property which depends
on phonological identity with its ancestor element, the s =copula is of normal
existentials like (79a). The invariant form theres appears to have been grammat-
icalised, a claim corroborated by its well-known colloquial use with plural NPs,
as in (79b). However, the strange existential also provides evidence for the status
of the second auxiliary. In normal existentials, all uses of behave alike,
auxiliary and non-auxiliary, and has been would be treated as a form of
around which the true subject could be moved under there-insertion, as in (79c).
Pattern (77) rather suggests that the of been shot has been grammaticalised as
an auxiliary of .
3.3 Progressive +
In this section I consider combinations of the progressive, + Ving, with a
second use of , the most important of which is the combination of progressive
and passive (3.3.1). In order to put its appearance in context we need to
mention alternatives (3.3.2), precursors (3.3.3), and analogues (3.3.4), before
considering an analysis (3.3.5).
3.3.1 Progressive +passive
According to Moss (1938: 263264) and Visser (19631973: 2158), nite
progressive passive constructions only began to be used in the late eighteenth
century. Moss and Visser show that progressive passives were at rst stigma-
tised in print and heavily condemned. To Vissers 28 examples prior to 1872, we
can add quite a few more, all of them three-verb syntagms of the type, tensed
form of (+ ) +being +past participle, for example:
8
130 DAVID DENISON
(80) 1772 J. Harris, in Lett. 1st Ld. Malmesbury (1870) I.264
I have received the speech and address of the House of Lords; proba-
bly, that of the House of Commons was being debated when the post
went out.
(81) 1779 Mrs. Harris in ibid. I.430
The inhabitants of Plymouth are under arms, and everything is being
done that can be.
(82) 1801 tr. Gabriellis Myst. Husb. I.125
It [sc. a bill] is being made out, I am informed, Sir.
(83) 1829 Landor Imag. Conv., Odysseus, etc.,
While the goats are being milked, and such other refreshments are
preparing for us as the place aords.
Since then the construction has become generally acceptable. For an account of
its spread via a social network see now Pratt and Denison (2000).
3.3.2 Passival +Ving (=with passive sense)
Until the progressive passive
(84) The house is being built.
entered the language, it was necessary either to do without explicit progressive
marking, as in (85) and the last clause of (86):
(85) 1662 Pepys, Diary III 51.25 (24 Mar)
I went to see if any play was acted
9
(86) 18389 Dickens, Nickleby v.52
he found that the coach had sunk greatly on one side, though it was
still dragged forward by the horses;
or to do without explicit passive marking, as in the curious construction of (87):
(87) The house is building.
This is not formally a passive (there is no +past participle), but its subject NP
is the argument which would be subject in a true passive and object in a normal
active, which is why Strang (1982: 441) calls (87) a covert passive and Visser
(19631973: 18721881) calls it passival. Passival (87) seems to have
fullled the function of the missing (84); see Denison (1993: 389391) for details
of its early history. Note also (39)(40) above. The alternatives remained in use
even after the progressive passive began to be possible.
Visser (196373: 187981) suggests that the retreat of the passival in the
face of the advancing progressive passive did not begin until the twentieth
century though Nakamuras (1991: 126129) statistics on usage in diaries and
letters show a steep decline from mid-nineteenth century. I shall suggest that the
replacing construction, progressive + passive, is evidence of the grammatical-
isation of the progressive.
3.3.3 Precursors of progressive +passive
A precursor of the progressive + passive construction involved the participial or
gerundial phrase being + past participle used absolutely
10
or separated from a
tensed . The gerundial pattern appeared in the fteenth century; for discussion
see Denison (1993: 431433):
(88) (1456) Paston 562.4
we being enformed at the matiere is
we being informed that the aair is
pitevous praie you hertly at ye wul
lamentable pray you earnestly that you will
(89) 1769 Mrs. Harris in Lett. 1st Ld. Malmesbury (1870) I.180
There is a good opera of Pugnianis now being acted
(90) 1779 J. Harris in ibid. (1870) I.410
Sir Guy Carlton was four hours being examined.
(91) 1798 Woodforde, Diary V 137.19 (14 Sep)
that the French had been defeated, and that the Irish were in a
fair Way, of being made quiet.
Sentences like (89) cannot be condently separated from the progressive passive,
given that (89) looks like a normal there-transform of
(89) A good opera of Pugnianis is now being acted.
with only a light adverb interrupting the verbal syntagm.
These non-nite constructions probably do not contain a combination of
auxiliaries. While Visser regards none of them as true progressive passives,
Nehls (1974: 158 n.149) singles out (90) as the rst certain example of the
construction; see also my comment on (89). I have found a seventeenth-century
example which looks exactly like the progressive passive:
(92) 1667 Pepys, Diary VIII 249.28 (3 Jun)
thinking to see some cockghting, but it was just being done; and
therefore back again
132 DAVID DENISON
I believe, however, that (92) probably belongs with the (88) type as another kind
of precursor of the progressive passive, because being done seems to mean just
nished or becoming nished for Pepys, like the non-nite (93):
(93) 1667 Pepys, Diary VIII 250.30 (4 Jun)
and that being done,
For clear evidence that being could mean becoming in Pepys see Denison
(1993: 433).
I nd one of Mosss (1938: 262) alleged near-progressives, not as it
happens repeated by Visser, particularly interesting:
(94) 1766 Goldsmith, Vicar xxv.141
I immediately complied with the demand, though the little money I
had was very near being all exhausted.
The all conrms that semantically, (94) is no progressive. The analysis must be
something like:
(95) [
VP
was [
AP
[
DEG
very near ] [
AP
being all exhausted ]]]
Compare my discussion of is being wicked in 3.3.4 below, where I recognise a
non-progressive structure like (95) for some early examples.
There are also prepositional patterns which seem to resemble the progressive
passive in the same way that +P +Ving resembles the ordinary progressive:
(96) 1669 Pepys, Diary IX 475.1 (8 Mar)
He tells me that Mr. Sheply is upon being turned away from my Lords
family, and another sent down.
3.3.4 Progressive of
The construction + lexical being is interesting for the light it throws on the
relation between the progressive and stative verbs here the archetypal stative
verb, itself. It may also be relevant to the history of the progressive passive,
which begins with an identical sequence of verb forms. For possible early
examples see Denison (1993: 395396). For Moss (1938: 266) and Visser
(196373: 18341835) the rst late Modern English example is:
(97) 1761 Johnston, Chrysal II 1.x.65
but this is being wicked, for wickedness sake.
They ignore the fact that (97) and examples from Fanny Burney and Jane Austen
over the next sixty years
11
do not appear to contain a progressive verbal group
is being at all: rather the verb is just equative is, which links an inanimate
pronoun subject (it, this, there) to a gerundial phrase being AP. The surface
subject is not an argument of the AP. The pattern may have helped prepare the
ground for the introduction of a progressive of , but it is dicult to think of
a sentence like (97) which could actually have been reanalysed as a true progres-
sive, since the function of the subject NP would have to change so radically. The
rst modern-looking example in Vissers collection is Jespersens rst
(19091949: IV225):
(98) 1819 Keats, Letters 137 357.4 (11 Jul)
You will be glad to hear how diligent I have been, and am being.
Here I is underlyingly an argument of being diligent. Visser explicitly
(19631973: 2426 n.1) but, I would say, wrongly accuses Jespersen of
getting the date of introduction too late.
For examples with NP rather than AP as complement, the one late-seven-
teenth-century example, (99), is better analysed as a non-progressive, just like
(97). For good examples we must wait until the nineteenth, (100):
(99) 1697 Vanbrugh, Provokd Wife III.i.198
Thats being a spunger, sir, which is scarce honest:
(100) 1834 R. H. Froude Rem. (1838) I. 378
I really think this illness is being a good thing for me.
Moss and Visser do not distinguish two possible structures non-progressive
(99) and progressive (100) for +being +AP/NP. Nor do they do so for
+being + .. Moss (1938: 266) merely observes that they are analo-
gous constructions which appeared at about the same time, but that the former
remained rare until the end of the nineteenth century. Visser (19631973:
18341835, 2158), however, who claims a much earlier date, suggests that
+being +AP may have been another subsidiary cause of the use of the progres-
sive passive.
Note also this apparent example with PP as adjunct or complement:
(101) c1515 Rastell, Interlude 376
Yet the eclyps generally is alwaye | In the hole worlde as [sc. at] one
tyme beynge;
134 DAVID DENISON
3.3.5 Reanalysis of progressive
I take it that progressive , like other auxiliaries, is developed out of a lexical
verb by reanalysis. However, of all the auxiliaries, progressive is the one
where the semantic dierence between a full-verb use and auxiliary use is least
perceptible, giving us wide latitude in dating a reanalysis. I hypothesise that it
occurred comparatively late. Incidentally, in my conception of syntax there is no
need to assume unique, black-and-white analyses everywhere. A recently
dominant but now less salient analysis can still play a part in the behaviour of a
construction, and not only in non-productive relics. Compare the concept of
persistence in grammaticalization theory (Hopper 1991).
If there has been a reanalysis of the progressive, what are the consequences
of locating (the most rapid phase of) the changeover in the late Modern English
period? I have sketched out a scenario in previous publications (e.g. Denison
1993: 441443; 1998: 155157) and will be briefer here. The crucial points are
that before the reanalysis a putative progressive passive:
(102) *The house was being built.
would have had to be analysed as containing the progressive of , but it could
not have been supported by pattern (103), progressive +predicative adjective,
since that was not in use before the nineteenth century:
(103) Jim was being stupid.
Here I follow Jespersen (19091949: IV225) and Strang (1970: 99) against Visser
(19631973: 2158); see 3.3.4 above. And the semantics of syntagms like being
built would not generally have been durative: see the discussion of (92)(93)
above. Hence the semantic and syntactic oddity of the progressive passive would
explain its non-appearance until near the end of the eighteenth century and the
erceness of some peoples reactions to it when it did nally begin to appear in
print in the nineteenth century.
After the reanalysis, the progressive passive (102) became possible for those
speakers with the new grammar, since it was the progressive not of passive
but of the lexical verb. Warner (1986: 164165) has also proposed a reanalysis
of constructions involving tensed forms of , giving 1700 and 1850 as extreme
limits. All uses of belong together in Warners account. In subsequent
publications (1993, 1995, 1997) he has constructed an explanation of how
auxiliary verbs came to dier from full verbs by having a series of forms with
independent syntactic properties, rather than belonging to a paradigm with a
single subcategorisation. In this explanation the loss of the being +Ving pattern,
(34), is another symptom of the same change.
3.4 Combinations involving passive
We take up a recent addition to the roster of possible English auxiliaries, one
that is not fully grammaticalised even now: . For a valuable recent study see
Gronemeyer (1999).
3.4.1 First appearance of passive
Most authorities follow OED in giving the mid-seventeenth-century (104) as the
rst recorded passive with :
(104) 1652 Gaule Magastrom. 361
A certain Spanish pretending Alchymist got acquainted with foure
rich Spanish merchants.
Strang cautiously and rightly describes acquainted as a predicative which
could be taken as a participle (1970: 150151). A better example is:
(105) 1693 Powell, A very good wife II.i p. 10 [ARCHER]
I am resolvd to get introduced to Mrs. Annabella;
There is then something of a gap. In Jespersens collection (19091949:
IV108109) the next examples chronologically are:
(106) 1731 Fielding, Letter Writers II.ix.20
so you may not only save your life, but get rewarded for your roguery
(107) 1759 Sterne, Tristram Shandy III.ii.126
he should by no means have suered his right hand to have got
engaged
(108) 1766 Goldsmith, Vicar xvii.90
where they give good advice to young nymphs and swains to get
married as fast as they can.
For some reason Vissers collection (19631973: 1893) misses (106)(108) and
continues with OEDs next examples, dated around 1800:
(109) 1793 Smeaton, Edystone L. 266
We had got (as we thought) compleatly moored upon the 13th of May.
(110) 1814 D. H. OBrien, Captiv. & Escape 113
I got supplied with bread, cheese and a pint of wine.
136 DAVID DENISON
Strang, too, seems to be unaware of (106) (and indeed (105)) when she writes
that unmistakably passive structures are not found till late in the 18c
(1970: 151).
3.4.2 Modal and/or n:vr/nr +passive cr1
Soon after passive cr1 entered the language it began to occur with preceding
auxiliary verbs, including modals and bo, as in (106) and:
(111) 1816 Quiz Grand Master viii.213
Or else they woud Get most confoundedly bambood.
(112) 1819 Southey Lett. (1856) III.150
I shall get plentifully bespattered with abuse.
(113) 1901 Shaw, Csar and Cleopatra II 272b
CSAR. No man goes to battle to be killed. CLEOPATRA. But
they do get killed.
(114) 1989 Gurganus, Confederate Widow III.i.2 328
If I do get killed, Ill only be dead.
When preceded by n:vr it seems reasonable to speak of perfect n:vr +passive
cr1, as in (107), (109) and:
(115) 1950- Survey of English Usage N2
If they dont oer it this time, I wont drag it away once somebody
mentioned it but it hasnt got mentioned very much.
(116) 1989 Gurganus, Confederate Widow II.i.2 164
he settled near his companys bonre. Itd got built one mile
from the meadow where
When preceded by nr there is room for doubt, as we shall see, as to the status
of nr (perfect or passive auxiliary?) and/or cr1 (passive auxiliary or causative?):
(117) 1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. I VII.x.281
the rst sky-lambent blaze of Insurrection is got damped down;
(118) 1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. I III.ii.69
An expedient has been propounded; and has been got adopted
(119) 1870 Alford in Life (1873) 457
I only hope the Masters work may be got done by bedtime.
(120) 1662 J. Davies, Olearius Voy. Ambass. 220
They were both gotten suciently Drunk.
(121) 1701 W. Wotton, Hist. Rome, Alexander, iii. 510
Maximus was got as far as Ravenna.
(122) 1888 Berksh. Gloss. s.v. Veatish
I be got rid o the doctor, an be a-veelin quite veatish [fairly well in
health] like now.
Examples (117)(118), (120)(121) come from Haegeman (1985: 5556, 71). In
my opinion it is highly doubtful whether any of (117)(122) contain cr1 as
passive auxiliary. If Carlyle is not to be charged with using a double perfect, nr
in (118) should mark passive, not perfect, but in fact from a present-day English
point of view (117)(119) look like passives of the pattern cr1 + NP +
i:s1.i:1, and Jespersen (19091949: V 16, 36) seems to agree; he asserts that
they correspond to the mainly American type (I give a later example):
(123) 1945 Coast to Coast 1944 103
Well, hes got me beat.
In that case the cr1 of (117)(119) and (123) is no passive auxiliary. Nor is the
cr1 of (120)(121) either, since there is no lexical past participle.
For the sake of completeness we may note that the sequence Modal +n:vr
+cr1 +i:s1.i:1 is attested too, though my example is recent:
(124) 1950- Survey of English Usage T1
If you, in fact, cleared that cupboard out to put oprints in it, it
might have got cleared out then.
3.4.3 Progressive nr +passive cr1
This is a predictable combination, though Visser (19631973: 2160), perhaps
surprisingly, has no examples before the very end of the nineteenth century:
12
(125) 1819 Scott Let. in Lockhart (1837) IV.viii.253
My stomach is now getting conrmed, and I have great hopes the bout
is over.
(126) 1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. I VII.viii.268
One learns also that the royal Carriages are getting yoked
(127) 1837 Dickens, Pickwick xxxii.479
Extraordinary place that city. We know a most astonishing number of
men who always are getting disappointed there.
The gerundial use of passive cr1 is earlier still:
138 DAVID DENISON
(128) 1776 G. Semple Building in Water 46
Our Coer-dam which we began to despair of ever getting made
even tolerably stanch [water-tight],
However, at present I have no examples of progressive nr + passive cr1
preceded by another auxiliary, whether modal or perfect n:vr, though they are
clearly grammatical in present-day English. Examples like
(129) 1931 Big Money xiii.309
even if he had been getting steadily plastered [drunk] all the
afternoon.
are not convincingly passive.
4. Multiple auxiliary combinations
We are now in a position to look for generalisations about how certain combina-
tions of auxiliaries came about, and when.
4.1 Two auxiliaries
A modal can be followed by an auxiliary of the perfect, the progressive or the
passive, and this has been the case since Old English for all such pairs except
perhaps modal +perfect nr, which is said to date from the fourteenth century but
has a couple of possible Old English examples.
Perfect n:vr can be followed by an auxiliary of the progressive (from
a1325) or the passive (c1180), and perfect nr is followed by passive vc1nr
(Old English). For perfect n:vr +passive cr1 I have examples from 1759/1793
(3.4.12).
Progressive nr can be followed by an auxiliary of the passive. Tensed
progressive nr +passive nr is found from 1772 (3.3.1), tensed progressive nr
+passive cr1 is found from 1819 (3.4.3) both rather earlier when the rst
verb is untensed nr.
4.2 Three or four auxiliaries
If we treat nr as the only signicant auxiliary of the progressive, the following
four-verb combinations should be possible, with dates of their earliest occurrence
where known:
(A) modal +perfect +progressive +V: ?a1425
(B) modal +perfect +passive +V: c1300
(C) perfect +progressive +passive +V: 1886/1929
(D) modal +progressive +passive +V: 1915
Patterns A to C require a past participle of . Patterns C and D combine
progressive and passive in a single syntagm.
Including passive brings the following additional possibilities, all
grammatical now, though data on rst occurrences are not readily available:
13
(E) modal +perfect +passive +V: 1950- (3.4.2)
(F) modal +progressive +passive +V: present-day English
(G) perfect +progressive +passive +V: present-day English
The following table arranges the information given above so that dates of rst
occurrence of three-auxiliary (four-verb) patterns can be compared with the dates
of rst occurrence of each adjacent pair of auxiliaries they contain.
14
To clarify
what is being tabulated, the rst line claims that pattern A (modal + perfect +
progressive might have been singing) is found from ?a1425, whereas the adjacent
pairings that make it up (modal +perfect might have sung and perfect +progres-
sive has been singing) are found from Old English and a1325, respectively.
I have not discussed or tabulated the maximal, four-auxiliary (ve-verb) sequences,
Table 1. Earliest combinations of auxiliaries
pattern rst pair second pair three auxiliaries
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Old English
Old English
a1325
Old English
Old English
Old English
a1325
a1325
c1180
1772
1772
1832
1819
1819
?a1425
c1300
1886/1929
1915
1950
present-day English
present-day English
on the assumption that nothing of great signicance will be lost by the omission.
4.3 The process of combining
Interestingly, Table 1 shows that it is always the rst pairing which occurs
earliest, then the second pairing, and nally the three-auxiliary pattern. The table
140 DAVID DENISON
would appear to support the conclusion that auxiliaries are added on at the left,
at the tensed end of the verbal group, in a development like (130):
(130) has been being sung is(was) being sung
In this hypothesised development, there is an easily motivated substitution of
perfect has been for simple tensed is/was, and after only a modest time-lag. That
is a much more satisfactory hypothesis than an imaginable (131):
(131) has been being sung has been sung
with the rather opaque and very long-delayed substitution of progressive
participle been being for simple past participle been. However, the evidence for
some of the dates is too skimpy to justify any weighty conclusions. One might
compare also
(132) (=(77)) Theres a man been shot.
There too we seem to have a grammaticalised item, s or rather theres, added on
at the left of a pre-existing been shot syntagm, though the process is a rather
more complex one involving blending.
Kossuth (1982: 291) presents a theory that the order of appearance in co-
occurrences parallels that of the original auxiliarization, but with a lag of a good
century. That last gure seems about right, to judge from my Table 1. However,
I assume that passive was grammaticalised before progressive (see below),
which is not her assumption. In Kossuths view, nite clauses in English have
always been subject to what she calls a Once-per-Clause Constraint (Kossuth
1982: 290). This states that each optional auxiliary can appear at most once, but
the basis of the rule has undergone a signicant change in the last two hundred
years. Formerly it had to be stated in terms of lexical items like , latterly in
terms of grammatical categories like Progressive. I have given a detailed critique
in Denison (1993: 454455).
The crucial dating problem is the progressive passive, as in the present-day
English example:
(133) Max was being serenaded.
From a present-day perspective its introduction in the late eighteenth century is
completely unmysterious, representing as it does the syntactic combination of
two long-established periphrases in a semantically compositional way. The
question then arises, why it took so long to appear, and why its early use met
with such a torrent of abuse. In the light of the discussion of how auxiliaries
combine, we can say that the combination of progressive and passive had to
await the full grammaticalisation of the progressive. In 3.3.5 above I suggested
that the reanalysis which produced the fully grammaticalised progressive did not
take place until around the late eighteenth century.
15
5. Conclusion
We have returned to the question of grammaticalisation of individual auxiliaries.
The process of grammaticalisation of an originally lexical verb which is a
matter of both semantics and syntax can be long-drawn-out and hard to assign
dates to. In semantics grammaticalisation probably involves generalisation and
perhaps bleaching of meaning (but cf. Brinton 1988), while in syntax the
(pre-)auxiliary changes from being head of its phrase to a modier of the lexical
head. (The latter characterisation will not apply to abstract formal analyses which
stack present-day English auxiliaries, like catenatives, in a nest of left-headed
phrases, so that apart from the rst, tensed verb, each verb is part of the
complement of the one preceding.) In the course of this paper on combinations
of auxiliaries I have given specic pieces of evidence for certain datings.
Summing up, I suppose that the auxiliaries were grammaticalised in the follow-
ing order:
16
I have concentrated on the central auxiliaries (plus some brief observations on
Table 2. Dates of grammaticalisation
auxiliary verb grammaticalisation
modals and oNciNN:N
perfect n:vr
periphrastic bo
passive nr
progressive nr
passive cr1
already in Old English
already in Old English
fourteenth-fteenth centuries
fourteenth-eighteenth centuries?
late eighteenth century?
twentieth century and continuing
cr1), but the many verbs which are, or have been, marginal to the auxiliary
system would also repay investigation from this point of view, as with syntagms
like gonna go, imperative dont lets V/lets dont V, and so on. I discuss a
number of marginal auxiliaries in Denison (1998). The history of all verbal
periphrases in English is a much larger topic than can be dealt with in a single
paper. The pathways of development of each periphrasis and the relationships
142 DAVID DENISON
between periphrasis and simple form are intricate matters, some of which are
gone into in Denison (1993). Even where these matters are well understood it
can be dicult to decide where on the scale from full verb to auxiliary a
particular example falls in other words, to pin down the degree of gram-
maticalisation involved. All I have attempted here is to gather one particular
sort of evidence, in the belief that it may shed light on the processes of
grammaticalisation.
Acknowledgment
To construct a coherent account I have built on material scattered over six long chapters of Denison
(1993), where a full list of primary sources can be found. Early versions of some parts were
presented in Helsinki, Amsterdam and Durham in 199091; the paper then fell victim to the
vicissitudes of publishing. The present paper adds some new data and analysis and benets from
revisions suggested by the editors.
Notes
1. Visser observes that with three-verb clusters of modal + modal + V, the rst modal is almost
always (196373: 2134). The only exceptions Visser gives for the Middle English and
early Modern English periods are the following:
a. a1400 Lanfranc 17.2
Also he muste kunne evacuener him at is
also he must know-how-to free him that is
ful of yuel humouris.
full of evil humours
b. (c1443) Pecock Rule 375.2
infantis mowe receive i sacrament of
infants may receive your sacrament of
baptym eer ei mowe kunne worschipe ee.
baptism before they may know-how-to worship you
c. c1454 Pecock Fol. 129.5
if y se my neibour goyng forto drenche
if I see my neighbour going to drown
him silf, y oughte forto wille defende him fro drenching
him self I ought to wish prevent him from drowning
References are given to may can V, etc., in current American English dialects. Elsewhere,
however (196373: 1357), he notes innitival modal , as seen for instance in:
d. 1871 Macdu Mem. Patmos xi. 153
We cannot dare read the times and seasons of prophecy.
Ogura (1998: 2323) cites wolde mot in one MS of Cursor Mundi, though mot seems to me an
obvious error for not, the negative particle used in that MS., and (1434) Misyn ML may will
with root will.
2. The context of (13) makes clear that a denite order for the wool had not yet been placed.
3. Wezen is a special innitive form diering from the normal innitive zijn used
colloquially to replace the past participle geweest in this construction (Geerts et al. 1984: 578).
4. The judgements remain the same if the subject NP Jim is retained in the non-nite versions.
A similar exercise with passive examples reveals the possibly unexpected absence of being
+being +Ving:
a. The courses are/were being taught by the same tutor.
b. *Being being taught by the same tutor makes it easier.
This is of less interest, however, since here the (a) pattern is relatively new.
5. It is perhaps not surprising that OED should be inconsistent in its analysis of what are surely
parallel constructions, the idioms cr1 quit of and cr1 rid of, which provide many of the
possible early examples of passive cr1 (to judge from a computer search of OED citations).
It denes the former s.v. quit, quite a., therefore not as a cr1-passive, but the latter s.v.
transitive rid v. 3d.
6. The editor marks [.] as quite undecipherable but notes that previous editors of the journal
had read MD [= Swifts monogram for Stella, and sometimes Stella and Dingley]. I am
grateful to Dr Fujio Nakamura (p.c.) for examples (49), (53) and (55) and the information on
(49).
7. Here English is like, say, French and unlike, say, Italian or Dutch.
8. Further examples up to c1830 in OED
2
(found by means of an early test release of the
CD-ROM version) are dated 1826 s.v. new a. A.5b, a1834 s.v. preconception, 1828 s.v. ring
v.
2
B.6a.
9. The sense of (85) is if any play was being acted (later that evening)/was to be acted, so
that it would not be a substitute for the central sense of the progressive.
10. Non-nite being+passive participle should not be called progressive, since verbs like xNov,
ovN which resist the progressive have non-nite -ing forms.
11. It is worth pointing out that the two examples from Jane Austen Moss cites Pride &
Prejudice II.iii[xxvi].144 and Visser Emma II.xiv[xxxii].280 are dialogue by Eliza Bennet
and Mr Woodhouse, respectively. It is highly unlikely that Austen, even with her general
predilection for the progressive, would have put such a novel construction into the mouths of
careful speakers, especially the fussy, old, prim Mr Woodhouse.
Phillipps (1970: 117) cites an example outside dialogue:
a. 1816 Austen, Emma III.xv[li].444
She was so happy herself, that there was no being severe.
By such gerundial usage, he suggests, Jane Austen does approach the modern construction.
And OED
2
has an example from 1679 s.v. idiotical a. 1.
12. Note that his earliest examples of progressives of cr1 and nrcoxr + AP (cr1 old, nrcoxr
impolite, etc.) are also from the turn of the twentieth century, though he has much older
citations with the verbs cov and v:x (Visser 19631973: 1840). Earlier instances of
144 DAVID DENISON
progressive cr1 + AP include (a), (b) and (c) below and (129) above, while participial cr1 +
AP is much older still, (d) below:
a. 1802 Woodforde, Diary V 403.19 (29 Aug)
My Throat is daily getting better he says.
b. 1834 T. Medwin Angler in Wales I.21
The race of our bull-dogs is getting fast extinct,
c. 1839 Dickens, Ol. Twist (1850) 60/1
Youre getting too proud to own me afore company, are you?
d. 1624 Saunderson 12 Serm. (1637) 172
The Morter getting wet dissolveth
13. If we included passive vrob:N it would bring the additional possibility of modal +perfect
n:vrnr +passive vrob:N +V, but according to Mitchell (1985: 753, 1095) this did not
occur in Old English, and I have not located any examples in Middle English. The theoretical
combinations involving progressive nr +passive vrob:N did not apparently occur.
14. I tabulate the order as idealised to the present-day English norm. Compare now Warner
(1997: 182184); I have modied one date c1300 rather than a1325 for pattern B in the
light of Warners useful discussion.
15. The likelihood of dierential dates of adoption of the new grammar by dierent groups of
speakers is discussed in Pratt and Denison (2000), and for other evidence on the dating of
grammaticalisation of the progressive see Denison (1998: 143146).
16. I cannot justify all the various datings in Table 2, and I have not mentioned oNciNN:N
begin at all: see Denison (1985a, 1993) for some discussion. There are, incidentally,
signicant dierences from the dates given in Kossuths Table 2 (1982: 294). Quite a bit of the
data in her interesting sketch can in fact be antedated (as she herself foresaw). In the light of
the argument developed here I have modied some datings from the table originally given in
Denison (1993: 440).
References
Boyland, J. T. 1998. A corpus study of would + have + past-participle. In Historical
Linguistics 1995: Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference on Histori-
cal Linguistics, Manchester, August. 1995, vol. 2, Germanic [Current Issues in
Linguistic Theory 162], R. M. Hogg and L. van Bergen (eds), 117. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brinton, L. J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and
Post-verbal Particles [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 49]. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bybee, J. L., Pagliuca, W. and Perkins, R. D. 1991. Back to the future. In Approaches
to Grammaticalization, vol. 2, Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological
Studies in Language 19], E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 1758. Amsterdam and
de la Cruz, J. 1995. The geography and history of double modals in English: A new
proposal. Folia Linguistica Historica 16: 7596.
Denison, D. 1985a. The origins of periphrastic : Ellegrd and Visser reconsidered.
In Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics:
Amsterdam, 1013 April 1985 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 41], R. Eaton, O.
Fischer, W. Koopman and F. van der Leek (eds), 4560. Amsterdam and Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
Denison, D. 1985b. Some observations on being teaching. Studia Neophilologica
57: 157159.
Denison, D. 1992. Counterfactual may have. In Internal and External Factors in
Syntactic Change [Trends in Linguistics / Studies and Monographs 61], M. Gerritsen
and D. Stein (eds), 229256. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Denison, D. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions [Longman Linguistics
Library]. London and New York: Longman.
Denison, D. 1998. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 4,
17761997, S. Romaine (ed.), 92329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellegrd, A. 1953. The Auxiliary do: The Establishment and Regulation of its Growth in
English [Gothenburg Studies in English 2]. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Geerts, G., Haeseryn, W., de Rooij, J. and van den Toorn, M. C. 1984. Algemene
Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordho.
Gronemeyer, C. 1999. On deriving complex polysemy: The grammaticalization of get.
English Language and Linguistics 3: 139.
Haegeman, L. 1985. The get-passive and Burzios generalization. Lingua 66: 5377.
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to
Grammaticalization, vol. 1, Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, E. C.
Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 1735. [Typological Studies in Language 19]. Amster-
dam and Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins.
Jespersen, O. 190949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, 7 vols.
Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universittsbuchhandlung.
Kossuth, K. C. 1982. Historical implications of the co-occurrence constraints on
auxiliaries. Lingua 56: 283295.
Lako, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the
Mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English Syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Montgomery, M. B. 1989. Exploring the roots of Appalachian English. English World-
Wide 10: 227278.
Montgomery, M. B. and Nagle, S. J. 1994 (for 1993). Double modals in Scotland and the
southern United States: Trans-Atlantic inheritance or independent development?
Folia Linguistica Historica 14: 91107.
Moss, F. 1938. Histoire de la forme priphrastique tre +participe prsent en german-
ique, vol. 2, Moyen-anglais et anglais moderne [Collection Linguistique, La Socit
Linguistique de Paris 43]. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
146 DAVID DENISON
Murray, J. A. H., Bradley, H., Craigie, W. A. and Onions, C. T. (eds). 1933 (and CD-ROM
version. 1988). The Oxford English Dictionary, 13 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nagle, S. J. 1993. Double modals in early English. In Historical Linguistics 1989:
Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Rutgers
University, 1418 August. 1989 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 106], H.
Aertsen and R. J. Jeers (eds), 363370. Amsterdam and Philadelphia PA: John
Benjamins.
Nagle, S. J. 1994. The English double modal conspiracy. Diachronica 11: 199212.
Nagle, S. J. 1995. The English double modals: Internal or external change? In Linguistic
Change under Contact Conditions [Trends in Linguistics / Studies and Monographs
81], J. Fisiak (ed.), 207215. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nakamura, F. 1991. On the historical development of the activo-passive progressive: the
house is building. In Aspects of English Philology and Linguistics (Festschrift
oered to Dr Masatomo Ukaji on his sixtieth birthday), S. Chiba (ed.), 121143.
Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Nehls, D. 1974. Synchron-Diachrone Untersuchungen zur Expanded Form im Englischen:
eine Struktural-Funktionale Analyse [Linguistische Reihe 19]. Munich: Max Hueber
Verlag.
OED. See Murray et al. (1933,1988) and Simpson and Weiner (1992 [1991]).
Ogura, M. 1993. Schal (not) mowe, or double auxiliary constructions in Middle English.
The Review of English Studies 44: 539548.
Ogura, M. 1998. On double auxiliary constructions in medieval English. In English
Historical Linguistics and Philology in Japan, J. Fisiak and A. Oizumi (eds),
229236. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Phillipps, K. C. 1970. Jane Austens English [The Language Library]. London: Andr
Deutsch.
Plank, F. 1984. The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8: 305364.
Pratt, L. and Denison, D. 2000. The language of the Southey-Coleridge circle. Lan-
guage Sciences 22: 401422.
Rydn, M. and Brorstrm, S. 1987. The be/have Variation with Intransitives in English:
With Special Reference to the Late Modern Period [Stockholm Studies in English 70].
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C. 1992 (beta test version. 1991). The Oxford English
Dictionary: CD-ROM version (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strang, B. M. H. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen.
Visser, F. Th. 194656. A Syntax of the English Language of St. Thomas More [Materials
for the Study of the Old English Drama n.s. 19, 24, 26.], 3 vols. Louvain: Librairie
Universitaire.
Visser, F. Th. 196373. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, 4 vols. Leiden: E. J.
Brill.
Warner, A. R. 1986. Ellipsis conditions and the status of the English copula. York
Papers in Linguistics 12: 153172.
Warner, A. R. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History [Cambridge Studies in
Linguistics 66]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warner, A. R. 1995. Predicting the progressive passive: Parametric change within a
lexicalist framework. Language 71: 533557.
Warner, A. R. 1997. Extending the paradigm: An interpretation of the historical develop-
ment of auxiliary sequences in English. English Studies 78: 162189.
Wekker, H. Chr. 1987. Points of Modern English syntax LXIX. English Studies
68: 456463.
Grammaticalisation:
Unidirectional, non-reversable?
The case of to before the innitive in English
Olga Fischer
University of Amsterdam
1. Introduction
In the literature on grammaticalisation it is quite generally assumed that this
process is unidirectional and non-reversable, and also that it is essentially a
process driven by semantic or pragmatic factors with grammatical and phonetic
changes as it were automatically following (cf. Brinton 1988; Lehmann 1991;
Traugott and Heine 1991; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Bybee, Perkins and
Pagliuca 1994). I have tried to show on two other occasions (cf. Fischer 1994b,
1997b) that the syntactic and semantic changes do not necessarily go in tandem,
and that the assumption of grammaticalisation as a diachronic process clashes
with models of change that accept that change takes place within the grammar of
each speaker, i.e. that each speaker builds up his grammar afresh and does not
take account of processes that have started long before he was there. I agree with
Harris and Campbell (1995) that it is probably methodologically more accurate
to consider grammaticalisation not as a separate mechanism or cause of change,
but as a process built up out of a series of reanalyses and extensions.
1
A process
that may proceed all the way, from lexical item to ax or even zero, but as
often as not may stop halfway, or may even regress to some extent. Each station
in the series or the chain is dependent on synchronic circumstances and deter-
mines the direction of the change afresh. In another paper (Fischer 1999), I also
tried to show that many of the processes at work during grammaticalisation are
motivated by iconicity, such as analogy, metaphor, isomorphism and persistence.
I do not wish to go very deeply into the iconic aspects of grammaticalisation
here (I refer the interested reader to Fischer 1999), but I would like to look in
150 OLGA FISCHER
detail at what happened in one particular case of grammaticalisation, and
determine the nature of the process, and what may have caused it, in order to get
a clearer picture of what grammaticalisation is. But rst, before turning to this
case study, I want to briey show what I understand by iconicity, since this
plays an important background role in the discussion that follows.
As I mentioned above, I believe that iconicity plays an important role in
grammaticalisation processes, and may even upset some of its presumed uni-
directionality. Since iconicity is used by linguists in dierent ways, a description
of what I understand by iconicity is in order. Iconicity as a semiotic notion refers
to a natural resemblance or analogy between the form of a sign (the signier,
be it a letter or sound, a word, a structure of words, or even the absence of a
sign) and the object or concept (the signied) it refers to in the world or rather
in our perception of the world. The similarity between sign and object may be
due to common features inherent in both: by direct inspection of the iconic sign
we may glean true information about its object. In this case we could speak of
imagic iconicity (as in a portrait or in onomatopoeia, e.g. cuckoo) and the
sign is called an iconic image. When we have a plurality of signs, the analogy
may be more abstract: we then have to do with diagrammatic iconicity, which
is based on a relationship between signs that mirrors a similar relation between
objects/concepts or actions (e.g. a temporal sequence of actions is reected in the
sequence of the three verbs in Caesars famous dictum veni, vidi, vici: in this
instance, the sign here the syntactic structure of three verbs is an iconic
diagram). Obviously, it is primarily diagrammatic iconicity that is of great
relevance to language. Both imagic and diagrammatic iconicity are not clean-cut
categories but form a continuum, on which the iconic instances run from almost
perfect mirroring (i.e. a semiotic relationship that is virtually independent of any
individual language) to a relationship that becomes more and more suggestive
and also more and more language-dependent (for a convenient overview of
various types of iconicity see Fischer and Nnny 1999). Isomorphism, a term
also used in the discussion that follows, is an example of diagrammatic iconicity
of a rather abstract kind. It is used here in the sense used by Haiman
(1980: 515516), i.e. the principle of one form (signier) corresponding to one
meaning (signied). Iconicity also plays a fundamental role in the so-called
naturalness approach to language theory (e.g. in the work of Wolfgang Dressler,
Willi Mayerthaler, David Stampe, Wolfgang Wurzel and others), and in cognitive
approaches to language (as in the work of Talmy Givn, Ronald Langacker, Paul
Hopper, Sandra Thompson and others). Basic to both these approaches is (in the
words of Dressler 1995: 22) that it does not assume an autonomous module of
grammar, but attempts to nd cognitive and other extralinguistic bases for
UNIDIRECTIONALITY: TO BEFORE THE INFINITIVE 151
grammatical principles and preferences, that questions of the relationship
between language and the mind can be approached only by considering language
in its natural functional context (Hopper and Thompson 1984: 747748), and that the
cognitive strategies underlying language systems have a strong perceptual basis.
After this brief excursion, I now wish to consider what exactly the nature of
grammaticalisation is. One of the problems I have with the way grammatical-
isation has been dealt with in the literature is that the mechanistic side of it has
been overemphasised, with the result, I think, that the mechanism has become
too powerful as an explanatory tool or as a description of a diachronic process
of linguistic change. Thus, the following quote from Bybee et al. (1994: 298)
suggests that grammaticalisation is seen as an independent process with indepen-
dent explanatory value: Thus our view of grammaticization is much more
mechanistic than functional: the relation between grammar and function is
indirect and mediated by diachronic process. The processes that lead to grammat-
icization occur in language use for their own sakes; it just happens that their
cumulative eect is the development of grammar (italics added). Similarly,
Vincent (1995: 434) talks about the power of grammaticalisation as an agent of
change (italics added), which suggests that grammaticalisation has explanatory
value, that it has independent force. Finally, Heine et al. (1991b: 9) write that
Meillet followed Bopp rather than Humboldt in using grammaticalization as an
explanatory parameter in historical linguistics (italics added), and the authors
themselves seem to follow this line too (see 1991b: 11).
Let us rst look at the way the process has been described in the literature.
Grammaticalisation is generally seen as a gradual diachronic process which is
characterised as unidirectional, i.e. it always shows the evolution of substance
from the more specic to the more general and abstract (Bybee et al. 1994: 13).
The unidirectionality applies on all levels, the semantic, the syntactic and the
phonological. Almost without exception, the process is seen as semantically
driven, with bleaching of meaning playing a primary role. (This is not true for all
linguists, notably Hopper and Traugott (1993) believe that bleaching only plays
a role in the later stages of grammaticalisation.) Rubba (1994: 81), for instance,
describes it as primarily a process of semantic change. Bybee et al. (1994: 1718)
even suggest that we can reconstruct the path of grammaticalisation with the help
of the hypothesis that semantic change is predictable. The notion of graduality
implies that grammaticalisation is seen as an evolutional continuum. Any
attempt at segmenting it into discrete units must remain arbitrary to some extent
(Heine and Reh 1984: 15, and see also Heine et al. (1991b: 68, 165 and passim).
In this light it is not surprising to read that the mechanisms at work in and the
causes of grammaticalisation are also seen as basically semantic/pragmatic in
152 OLGA FISCHER
nature. For most linguists writing on grammaticalisation, the main mechanisms
involved are metaphoric and metonymic in nature.
2
Metaphoric change can be
related to analogy, it is a type of paradigmatic change whereby a word-sign used
for a concrete object (i.e. the word back as part of the body) can be reinterpreted
on a more abstract level as an indication of location (because of some element
that these concepts have in common), and then further interpreted along the
metaphorical axis as an indication of time. Metonymic change can be related
to re-analysis, and functions on the syntagmatic plane. It takes place mainly via
the semanticization of conversational inferences (Hopper and Traugott
1993: 84). A good example of metonymic change is the case of to be going to
discussed in the introduction (this volume). Another example discussed by
Hopper and Traugott (1993: 85) is the change in OE hwile while; the meaning
of temporal simultaneity that it has, may change into a causal meaning because
in many cases the conditions specied in the subordinate clause [i.e. the clause
introduced by while] serve not only as the temporal frame of reference for those
in the main clause, but also as the grounds for the situation.
As far as the cause of grammaticalisation is concerned, this is usually seen
as being pragmatic in nature. Bybee et al. (1994: 300) write: the push for
grammaticization originates in the tendency to infer as much as possible
from the input, and in the necessity of interpreting items in context. They show
that grammaticalisation occurs in cycles or is self-propelling. The process of
grammaticalisation (loss of concrete form) itself leads to a search for new
expressive means to indicate the same function, and when the new expression
has again grammaticalised, the search for a new concrete expression begins
again. Likewise Hopper and Traugott (1993: 86) concur with Heine et al. (1991a:
150151) that grammaticalization can be interpreted as the result of a process
which has problem-solving as its main goal. It is the result of a search for
ways to regulate communication and negotiate speaker-hearer interaction
(1993: 86).
Although I would agree with the views just now discussed, i.e. that re-
analysis and analogy, or metonymic and metaphorical processes, are important in
language change, and also that grammaticalisation may be caused by the need for
expressivity and routinisation, I still cannot see that there is room for a separate
or independent process of grammaticalisation. Where most linguists see a
unidirectional process from concrete to abstract, a process that cannot be cut up
into segments, I can only see a more or less accidental concurrence. The
processes underlying grammaticalisation may lead one way as well as another,
i.e. there is no necessary link between one segment of the chain of grammatic-
alisation and another.
3
I also think that grammaticalisation processes themselves can only be
discovered with hindsight, which means that if we have a preconceived notion of
what grammaticalisation is, we will indeed discover mainly those processes that
have run a full or fullish course, and we will not realise that there may be
many cases where the path of grammaticalisation proceeded dierently. So it
may only seem that grammaticalisation usually follows the same channel.
Aborted and reversed processes are very dicult to nd when one looks back-
wards in this way.
4
So the similarities in known cases of grammaticalisation may
have led to an overemphasis on a common core, and through that the idea may
have arisen that grammaticalisation is an explanatory parameter in itself. To my
mind it is the subprocesses that explain the change. I agree with linguists such as
Lightfoot (1979, 1991, 1999) and Joseph (1992) that, logically, diachronic
processes cannot exist because diachronic grammars do not exist. Each speaker
makes up his own grammar afresh on the basis of data surrounding him, and on
the basis of his general cognitive abilities or strategies (or, so one wishes, on the
basis of some innate Language Acquisition Device). So why should a grammat-
icalisation process necessarily run from a to b, to c etc.? Why should there be
unidirectionality?
5
With Harris and Campbell (1995: 20, 336.) (and see also
Fischer 1997b) I would tend to accept that grammaticalisation has no indepen-
dent status, no explanatory value in itself. It was when I looked at the so-called
grammaticalisation of have to in English from a possessive verb to a modal
auxiliary (see Fischer 1994b) that I began to realise that not all grammatical-
isation change is driven semantically, and that unexpected, language specic
factors may play a role. I think it pays to look at any hypothetical grammatical-
isation process in detail, next to taking the wider, typological birds eye view.
Here, therefore, I would like to consider the case of innitival to in English.
2. The case of innitival to
There is a widespread belief that the development of the original preposition to
before the innitive into a meaningless innitival marker follows a well-known
grammaticalisation channel. This is clear from Haspelmaths (1989) study, the
essence of which is expressed in his title, From purposive to innitive a
universal path of grammaticization. Haspelmath shows that in many languages
in the world the allative preposition to in English which expresses
location, or rather the goal of motion, also comes to express goal or purpose
more abstractly; and that in combination with the innitive, the preposition
begins to lose its original purposive function, ending up as a purely grammatical
154 OLGA FISCHER
element to indicate that the verbal form is an innitive. This interpretation of the
development is already seen in Jespersen (and cf. also Mustanoja 1960: 514),
In the to-innitive, to had at rst its ordinary prepositional meaning of
direction, as still in he goes to fetch it; But gradually an enormous
extension of the application of this to-innitive has taken place: the meaning
of the preposition has been weakened and in some cases totally extinguished,
so that now the to-innitive must be considered the normal English innitive,
the naked innitive being reserved for comparatively few employments, which
are the solitary survivals of the old use of the innitive. This development is
not conned to English: we nd it more or less in all the Gothonic languages,
though with this preposition only in the West Gothonic branch (G. zu, Dutch
te), while Gothic has du, and Scandinavian at ( ) (Jespersen 1927: 1011)
It seems to me that the expectations raised by the fact that this seems to be a
frequent grammaticalisation pattern, has led us too much to see the English case
as following the well-trodden path. I think it pays to look more closely at the
linguistic details. I have compared the development of the innitive marker in
Dutch and English
6
and come to the conclusion that to and cognate te have not
grammaticalised in the same way. On the contrary, it looks as if to has been
stopped early in its development and has even regressed in some respect. I think
this could be characterised as a process of what Frans Plank (1979) has called
Ikonisierung, a moving away from the symbolic pole back to the iconic one. I
will rst briey explain what I mean by these two poles. It is well-known that
in language there is competition between iconic and economic motivation (cf.
Haiman 1983) or between the need for clarity and the need for processing speed.
General erosion leads to the loss of expressivity and consequently to a constant
need for new linguistic expressions. One could say therefore that language moves
or is situated along an axis with two poles: an iconic, concrete pole at one end,
and a symbolic (or perhaps arbitrary or conventional is a less confusing term
here), abstract one at the other. In grammaticalisation, elements move along this
axis, from concrete to abstract. One could also refer to the iconic pole as original
and creative and to the symbolic as derivative and mechanistic.
I believe indeed that the forces behind the development of to have been to
a large extent iconic (with persistence and analogy or isomorphism playing an
important role, see for more detail Fischer 1999), although there were some
syntactic factors too, which I will come back to below. The main iconic factor
indeed is isomorphism. I am using the term here, as used by Haiman (1980),
meaning the existence of a one-to-one relation between signans and signatum,
similar to von Humboldts principle of one form-one meaning. One can see that
through the grammaticalisation of to, the original isomorphic or one-to-one
relation between the signans and the signatum (as given in (1a)),
(1) Structural stages in the grammaticalisation of to
a. b. c.
a
x
a
xy
a
x
b
y
( =the signans to; =the reduced signans of to; x =signatum
goal; y =signatum innitival marker)
is disturbed (as shown in (1b)). Through grammaticalisation, the sign to acquires
two signata: the rst is the original prepositional purposive to, and the second
the semantically empty, innitive marking element to. The result is then an
asymmetric, non-isomorphic situation as shown in (1b). This lack of isomor-
phism can be amended in two ways. The usual way according to the grammat-
icalisation hypothesis is for the new signatum to acquire its own distinctive
linguistic form. This may be obtained through the phonetic reduction of to (this
is another iconic principle, the quantity principle, see Givn 1995: 49), which
would then coexist with the full form to (stage (1c)). This development is most
clear in Dutch, which has innitival te, next to the earlier particle toe. But in
Middle English, too, we nd occasional te spellings or other spellings indicating
the phonetic reduction of to.
7
So with stage (1c) we have a new stable isomor-
phic relation. The other solution for the asymmetry of (1b) is to go back to the
earlier symmetry (i.e. 1a). This also makes the relation isomorphic again, and it
is more strongly iconic than (1c) because here the sign to is linked back up with
its original meaning, i.e. it is re-iconicised, going back to the iconic pole (in
Fischer 1999, I argue that this process, usually called persistence, is also iconic
in nature). So my suggestion is that diacronically English to moved back to stage
(1a), while Dutch te moved on to stage (1c). In what follows, I will have a look
at the (comparative) facts, and also oer some suggestions as to why English to
re-iconicised, both in terms of isomorphism and persistence.
2.1 The grammaticalisation of to in its early stages
It seems that at rst, in the late Old English, early Middle English period, to
developed very much like Dutch te. Evidence for this can be found in the
following facts:
(2) a. strengthening of to by for
b. phonetic reduction of to
c. loss of semantic integrity
d. occurrence of to-innitive after prepositions other than for
156 OLGA FISCHER
2.1.1 To strengthened by for
First we nd the need for an additional preposition (for) to emphasise the goal
function of the to-innitive. This use of for is attested from 1066 onwards (see
Mustanoja 1960: 514) and steadily increases in the Middle English period until
1500 (see Table 1). A similar development can be seen in Middle Dutch, where
om(me) te begins to occur quite frequently (see Stoett 1909: 283) and becomes
more and more regular for the expression of purpose (see Gerritsen
1987: 143147), becoming obligatory in many positions in Modern Dutch and
remaining there whenever purpose or direction is intended.
2.1.2 Phonetic reduction of to
The phonetic reduction of to to te can be found in Middle English, as shown in
Table 1. In Middle Dutch we already only nd the reduced form, but this can be
reduced even further to a single phoneme t attached to the innitive (Stoett 283
gives the form tsine for te sine to be). I have found a few bound forms in the
Helsinki corpus too, all from the later Middle English period (examples are given
in note 7).
Table 1. The frequency of for to in the Middle English and early Modern English periods,
based on the Helsinki corpus (taken from Fischer 1997a)
11501250 1350 1420 1500 1570 1640 1710
forto
forte
for to
for te
(te, t, to-
01
87
14
03
36
29
15
91
01
03
46
01
3230
00
01
46
00
2510
00
02
01
00
41
00
01
00
00
07
00
00
0
0
5
0
(0)
2.1.3 Loss of semantic integrity
We see the occasional use of the to-innitive in Middle English in structures
where it cannot possibly be goal-oriented, i.e. in positions where the plain
innitive and the present participle (which express simultaneity rather than
purpose) had been the rule in Old English (cf. Fischer 1996: 119121). The
following is an example from a fourteenth century text, where to wepe clearly
expresses a state not a purpose,
(3) And in my barm ther lith to wepe / Thi child and myn
and in my bosom there lies weeping thy child and mine
(Macauley 19001901, Gower, Conf.Am. III 302)
In Middle Dutch, too, the usual forms in these constructions were the plain
innitive and the present participle (but a coordinated construction is also quite
often found, cf. Stoett 1909: 10, 281). But here, too, the te-innitive, which
becomes the rule in later Dutch (cf. the examples in (4)), begins to make headway,
(4) a. Hij lag te slapen
he lay to sleep
He lay sleeping
b. Zij stond te wachten
she stood to wait
She stood waiting
2.1.4 Occurrence of to-innitives after prepositions other than for
We see the occasional occurrence in Middle English of a to-innitive preceded
by another preposition which also governs the innitive, making clear that to can
no longer be prepositional. According to Visser (1969: 976), this structure does
not occur in Old English, and is very rare again in later English. Most of his
examples are from the period 1200 to 1500. Some illustrations are given in (5),
(5) a. bliss of herte that com of God to lovie
the happiness of heart that comes from God to love
from loving God (Morris 1965, Ayenbite 93)
b. himm bir eornenn a att an, / Hiss Drihhtinn wel to
cwemenn / Wi messess wi beness / wi to letenn
swingenn himm
and it behoves him to always desire that one (thing), to please
his Lord well with masses and prayers and with to let
scourge himself
and by having himself scourged
(Holt 1878, Orm. 635862)
In Middle Dutch, and more frequently in early Modern Dutch, the te-innitive
begins to occur too after other prepositions, such as van of, met with, na
after, and especially sonder without, and these constructions can still be found
in present-day Dutch, especially in colloquial speech (see Stoett 1909:
282283; Overdiep 1935: 354358). Some seventeenth century instances are
given in (6),
158 OLGA FISCHER
(6) a. Hy starf, niet sonder seer beclaeght te wesen,
he died not without deeply lamented to be (being lamented)
den 8sten April
the 8th of April (van Mander, Overdiep 1935: 420)
b. sal ick eindigen naer mijn groetenisse aen alle de vrinden
ghedaen te hebben
I will end after to have (having) given my greetings to all my
friends (Reig.77/16, Overdiep 1935: 421)
2.2 New developments involving to
So the initial stages in Middle English look like a regular grammaticalisation
process. However, towards the end of the Middle English period the trend seems
to reverse. All the structures discussed in Section 2.1 above seem to disappear.
Table 1 makes quite clear that the strengthening of the to-innitive with for,
disappears quite suddenly at least from the Standard language in the early
Modern period. I believe that the reason for this is that to went back to its
original meaning, again strongly expressing goal or direction (there is some
dierence with Old English usage, I will come back to that below). But apart
from the disappearance of the grammaticalisation characteristics enumerated in
(2), there are also new developments that indicate the renewed, semantic
independence of to before the innitive:
8
(7) a. appearance of split innitives
b. absence of reduction of scope
c. no loss of semantic integrity
2.2.1 The appearance of split innitives
The rst split innitives are attested in the fourteenth century (see Mustanoja
1960: 515; Visser 977; Fischer 1992a: 329330).
9
(8) Blessid be ou lord o hevyn / That suche grace hath sent to his /
Synfull men for to us lede / In paradice
(Cursor Mundi, Morris 1876, Laud Ms 1844044)
This shows that the grammaticalisation of to is disturbed in that the usual process
would have been for grammaticalised to to become more and more bonded to
the innitive, in accordance with one of the grammaticalisation parameters
distinguished by Lehmann (1985).
2.2.2 Absence of the reduction of scope
Another phenomenon showing ongoing grammaticalisation, also mentioned by
Lehmann, is the reduction of scope, which is absent in English. In Dutch, on the
other hand, there is reduction of scope: when two innitives are coordinated in
Modern Dutch, it is the rule for both innitives to be marked by te, if the rst
one is so marked (for some idiomatic exceptions see Fischer 1996: 112113). In
other words the scope of te has been reduced to its immediate constituent. This
is not the case in English where the rst to can have both innitives as its scope,
as the literal English translation of the non-acceptable Dutch example in (9) shows,
(9) a. *Je kunt deze shampoo gebruiken om je haar mee te wassen en je
kleren schoonmaken
b. You can use this shampoo to wash your hair and clean your
clothes
2.2.3 No loss of semantic integrity
Another of Lehmanns parameters, the loss of integrity, is relevant here too. It
is clear that in Dutch, te has gradually lost its semantic integrity, i.e. it has
become de-iconicised, and no longer expresses goal or direction; this is now
expressed obligatorily by om te. One result of this semantic loss in Dutch was
already mentioned in Section 2.1.3 above. Another one is the appearance of the
te-innitive with a future auxiliary in Dutch. Overdiep (1935: 336) shows that
they are quite regular already in early Modern Dutch. This again is a clear
contrast with English where such a future innitive simply never develops,
neither in Middle English when shall and will could still be used in innitival
form, nor later with the new future auxiliary to be going to. Overdiep also
mentions that zullen is especially common when the matrix verb itself is not
inherently future directed, so after a verb like say. The reason for this dierence
may be clear by now. To itself expressed future and therefore had no need for a
future auxiliary, whereas Dutch te no longer carried future meaning; it had
become empty of referential meaning, and therefore the Dutch innitive may
need reinforcement.
The loss of the purposive meaning of te has also widened the possibility of
using non-agentive subjects with a te-innitive in Dutch (showing grammatical-
isation along the animacy hierarchy, cf. Hopper and Traugott 1993: 157). With
a verb like dreigen threaten, the use of a non-agentive or an expletive it subject
(i.e. with the verb being used epistemically) is quite common in Dutch, while it
is more awkward in English, because of the stronger purpose meaning of to,
160 OLGA FISCHER
(10) a. Het dreigde te gaan regenen, toen ik het huis verliet
?
It threatened to rain, when I left the house.
Traugott (1993) notes that occurrences with expletive it are very rare in her
corpora but that they do occur. It is interesting to note that all ten informants that
I questioned, except one, do not like this sentence. They would much prefer, It
threatened rain or Rain threatened or It looked like rain, and they nd it also
more acceptable with a progressive verbal form. Obviously it is not a construc-
tion they would comfortably use themselves. Traugott also notes (1993: 187) that
although inanimate subjects with threaten occur, there is usually something
about the subject that leads to an expectation of the proposition coming into
being; in other words, there is a strong tendency still present to ascribe some
agentive function to the subject. Similarly (10b) can be non-agentive in Dutch,
(10) b. Hij dreigde van zijn ets te vallen
*He threatened to fall of his bike.
All my informants except one agree that (10b) is only possible in English if the
subject wanted to injure himself and thus inict pain on someone who cared for
him. The epistemic meaning is the usual interpretation of this sentence in Dutch.
When the subject has to be interpreted as agentive, the preferred construction
would be with a nite clause: Hij dreigde dat hij .
The same situation holds when dreigen is followed by a passive innitive,
making an agentive function of the matrix subject, which is also the subject of
the innitive, impossible (cf. Traugott 1995: 34: the passive demotes the
inference that the subject is volitional or responsible with respect to the
purposive clause). (11) then, is a perfectly possible sentence in Dutch, but
unacceptable for most English speakers,
(11) Hij dreigde ontslagen te worden
?
*He threatened to be red.
And a construction like (12) is ambiguous in Dutch, but not usually in English,
(12) Hij dreigde haar te doden
There was a danger that he would kill her.
He threatened to kill her
English speakers strongly prefer the second, agentive interpretation. The reason
for these dierences is the fact, as I mentioned above, that to in English is still
more strongly purposeful and therefore by default as it were one expects a
controlling agent. It should be mentioned here that threaten/dreigen is not the
only verb that shows this dierence in usage between Dutch and English.
Traugott (1993) also discusses the behaviour of the verb to promise, which verb
again in Dutch can be used non-agentively more easily than in English. In
Fischer (1997a: 271273), I also point out that in English to-innitives regularly
occur with the categories of verbs that Haspelmath (1989) has described as
irrealis directive and irrealis potential, but not with the categories realis non-
factive and realis-factive. The latter two categories contain clearly non-
directional verbs, and it is interesting that in Dutch and German these last two
categories do take te/zu innities much more easily than in English. Thus a verb
like arm does not take a to-innitive in English, but its Dutch semantic
equivalent verzekeren does (for more details see Fischer 1997a).
A nal dierence between Dutch and English is the formation of new
modal auxiliaries in English consisting of a matrix verb that has semantically
inherent future reference and the to element that belongs to the innitive
following the verb, as in to be going to/gonna, to want to/wanna, to have (got)
to/gotta etc. Plank (1984: 338339) notes that these verbs are unlike auxiliaries
in that they occur with to, but notes at the same time that these same auxiliaries
allow the conjunction [i.e. to] to be reduced and contracted in informal speech,
even when this is not fast speech, and before pauses, indicating that this to has
grammaticalised and become as it were axed to the matrix verb. This amal-
gamation is possible because both to and the matrix verb express future modality.
(So it seems to can become further grammaticalised in English only when it
coincides with another future-bearing element.
10
) In Dutch, however, this develop-
ment has not taken place, because there was no meaningful future or purposeful
te for the matrix verb to attach to. In fact, whenever we do get a (semi-)auxiliary
followed by a te-innitive, it is clear that te goes with the innitive. This is
shown in the position of the adverb in examples such as the following,
(13) a. Ik zit nu te denken /*Ik zit te nu denken
I sit now to think /I sit to now think
I am thinking now
b. Het dreigt thans te mislukken /*Het dreigt te thans mislukken
It threatens now to fail /It threatens to now fail
there is a possibility that it will fail
In linguistically similar cases in English, the adverb can occur between to and
the innitive, showing that to and the innitive do not form a cluster. That to in
fact forms a cluster with the matrix verb is shown by cases in which matrix verb
and to can be contracted as in the second example of (14),
162 OLGA FISCHER
(14) I want to immediately go there
I wanna go there immediately
3. The role played by the grammar
Now the question must be asked, what has caused the reversal in the grammatic-
alisation of to? I believe this is due to the grammatical circumstances under
which to developed. In one respect English came to dier radically from Dutch,
and this inuenced the use and interpretation of to. In early Middle English the
innitive became much more strongly verbal than in Dutch (for instance, Dutch
innitives can be preceded by a possessive pronoun or an article, which is
impossible in English (for more details see Fischer and van der Leek 1981: 319).
This verbal nature of the innitive was strengthened by the fact that to-innitives
started to replace that-clauses on a grand scale in the Middle English period (cf.
the rough statistics in Manabe 1989, and more specically Los 1998); that is,
they replaced clauses which have a tense-domain separate from the tense
expressed in the matrix clause (cf. Fischer 1997c). This caused the element to,
which originally expressed goal or direction, to function as a kind of shift-of-
tense element. What I mean is, to came to express a break in time, a movement
away from the time of the main clause; i.e. it again expressed direction. It is
indeed only in English that we later (the rst examples date from the late Middle
English period) see the development of two dierent kinds of innitival comple-
ments after perception verbs, where to becomes crucial in expressing a shift in
tense,
(15) a. it thoghte hem gret pite / To se so worthi on as sche, / With such
a child as ther was bore, / So sodeinly to be forlore
it seemed to them a great pity to see so worthy a woman as
she was to be destroyed together with the child that was born
to her
(Macauley 19001901, Gower, Conf.Am. II, 123942)
b. for certeynly, this wot I wel, he seyde, / That forsight of divine
purveyaunce / Hath seyn alwey me to forgon Criseyde,
for certainly, this I know well, he said, that the foresight of
divine providence has always seen that I would lose Criseyde
11
(Benson 1988, Chaucer T&C IV, 96062)
In both cases the to-innitive refers to something happening in the future. The
construction contrasts with the usual complement structure of physical perception
verbs, which until then had only allowed a bare innitive, expressing the
simultaneous occurrence of what had been seen, heard or felt, as in I saw her
cross(ing) the street. In present-day English, this to-innitive after perception
verbs now no longer expresses future time, but it still expresses a shift in tense,
making the experience indirect, as in (16),
(16) Alex saw Julia to have been in a hurry when she dressed (because
she was wearing her T-shirt inside out) (the example is from van der
Leek 1992: 13)
The type of construction shown under (15) was further strengthened by the inux
of Latin-type accusative and innitive constructions (aci) (as in (17)), which
again appear in the late Middle English period (i.e. when to reverted) showing
similar breaks in tense between matrix verb and innitive,
(17) I expect him to be home on time
These Latin-type aci constructions always have a to-innitive in English. (For
more details on this development, see Fischer 1992b, 1994a.). It seems that we
can conclude that special syntactic circumstances as it were forced innitival to
to become more isomorphic again with the preposition to.
4. A brief conclusion
I have tried to show that grammaticalisation processes do not always run the
same course, that there may be dierences between similar languages, that the
process may indeed be reverted, and that this relates to the specic grammatical
circumstances that a language nds itself in. In other words, grammaticalisation
need not be a process driven purely semantically, whereby the grammatical
changes are the result solely of semantic and/or pragmatic change. The way the
process developed in the case of to was (co-)determined by syntactic factors,
specic to English, and by universal iconic constraints or patterns such as
persistence and isomorphism.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank audiences at Zrich and Vienna University, the editors of Viewz (in which an
earlier version of this paper was prepublished [Viewz 7.1, 1998]), Elizabeth Traugott and Dieter Stein,
and especially my colleagues Frederike van der Leek at Amsterdam University and Bettelou Los at
the Free University of Amsterdam for their valuable criticisms and comments, and for their
164 OLGA FISCHER
willingness to discuss this paper with me. The paper has prospered from it, but of course those errors
and weaknesses that have no doubt remained are all my own responsibility.
Notes
1. For a general discussion of the necessity to make a distinction between grammar change and
aggregate language change, see also Lightfoot 1999: 220. Even though logically this
distinction (i.e. between the process of language acquisition and the historical development of
language) is clear-cut, the question remains as to what provides a proper explanation for
language change. It must be clear that explanations are to be found both in language use (the
triggering experience) and in the theory of grammar. The importance of each for explanation
all depends on how deep ones model of grammar is, the shallower ones grammar is, the
more an explanation will have to be found in the changing circumstances of language use (see
also Lass 1997 for a discussion of explanation and grammar-depth).
2. Bybee et al. (1994: 289.) recognise three other mechanisms of semantic change that play a
role in grammaticalisation (it is quite clear that for them the mechanisms of semantic change
are more or less equivalent to the mechanisms found in grammaticalisation, see p. 282), i.e. (3)
generalisation, (4) harmony and (5) absorption of contextual meaning. It is clear from their
description that all three mechanisms are essentially metonymic in nature, with metaphor
playing a subsidiary role. Indeed they conclude (p. 297): The most important point that can be
made from the discussion of mechanisms of change is that context is all-important.
3. Heine et al. (1991a) indeed refer to the process as a chain.
4. It is interesting to note that Bruyn (1995), who was looking at the developments taking place
in a pidgin becoming a creole (where it is believed that grammaticalisation plays an important
role), and so, as it were, looking for grammaticalisation evidence from another perspective (not
on the basis of selected cases from many languages as is usually done, but on the basis of full
data from one language where the process might be expected to apply according to the
hypothesis), found very few cases where grammaticalisation ran its full course. She found that
language contact (especially substratum inuence) often caused divergence (p. 241.), or early
abortion (p. 53.), or that sometimes a development was much more abrupt than is usual in
grammaticalisation cases (pp. 237239). Her investigation shows that it is important at each
stage to take into account the synchronic circumstances, which will ultimately (and freshly)
decide what will happen.
5. The principle of unidirectionality has been much in the limelight recently. The strongest
adherent of the principle must be Martin Haspelmath (1999), who indeed believes it is without
exceptions. This view came under strong attack at the recent (1999) conference on grammat-
icalisation held at the university of Potsdam, in papers delivered by among others, Johan van
der Auwera (Degrammaticalization), Aidan Doyle (Yesterdays axes as todays clitics:
functional heads and grammaticalisation in Irish), Muriel Norde (The nal stages of
grammaticalization: axhood and beyond), Gnter Rohdenburg (Degrammaticalization
phenomena with seeing and other adverbial conjunctions in English), who all argued, to my
mind convincingly, that true cases of degrammaticalization exist, even though they are more
rare. Roger Lass (this volume) goes into the philosophical, methodological and empirical
problems that this notion entails.
6. For more details, also on the comparative development of zu in German, see Fischer (1997a).
This article takes a dierent approach in that it considers the degrees of grammaticalisation of
to, zu and te only from the point of view of the parameters of grammaticalisation distinguished
by Lehmann (1985).
7. See e.g. King Horn (Hall 1901: 25), te lyue, and signs of reduction in forms such as tobinde
(Havelok, Smithers 1987: 56), tobe (Rolle, Psalter, Bramley 1884: 380), and tavenge (Caxton,
Reynard, Blake 1970: 54). All these instances are from late Middle English, none have been
found in earlier or later periods in the corpus I used (the Helsinki Corpus).
8. Some of the editors of Viewz (in which this paper was prepublished, see Vienna English
Working Papers 7.1, 524) raised the question here whether the developments mentioned under
(7) are not independent syntactic developments which only happen to aect the way in which
the innitive marker can be placed more or less accidently. This is of course a question of
interpretation. I do not believe they are independent because they take place at more or less the
same time, and because the same developments did not take place in either Dutch or German.
These developments are indeed closely tied up with the process of grammaticalisation (as
described in more detail in Fischer 1997a). The same editors mention as a possible counter-
example the case of the group genitive as in the teacher of musics room, which according to
them is not a case of de-grammaticalisation. I think it is interesting to observe in this connec-
tion that Janda (1980) has indeed suggested that it is a case of de-grammaticalisation (the
genitives being reinterpreted as a possessive pronoun).
9. There are also cases of split innitives found in early Middle English but these are of a
dierent type, they involve innitives preceded by the negative particle or by a personal
pronoun. Presumably (cf. van Kemenade 1987) these particles/pronouns are still clitics, which
explains their position next to the innitive which was becoming more verbal around this time.
10. The importance of to for the development of these new modals is also emphasised by Hopper
and Traugott (1993: 81), where they write, [t]he contiguity with to in the purposive sense must
have been a major factor in the development of the future meaning in be going to as an
auxiliary. A full discussion follows on pp. 8183. And see also Fitzmaurice (this volume) on
the link between the degrammaticalization of innitival to and the grammaticalization of to in
combination with semi-auxiliaries.
11. For more details on how this rather dicult example (of which there are three in Chaucer)
should be interpreted, see Fischer 1995: 1011.
Texts
Benson, L. D. (gen.ed.). 1988. The Riverside Chaucer [3rd ed.]. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Blake, N. F. (ed.). 1970. The History of Reynard the Fox, Translated from the Dutch
Original by William Caxton [EETS 263]. London: Oxford University Press.
Bramley, H. R. (ed.). 1884. The Psalter or Psalms of David and Certain Canticles with a
Translation and Exposition in English by Richard Rolle of Hampole. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Hall, J. 1901. King Horn. A Middle English Romance. Oxford: Clarendon.
Holt, R. (ed.). 1878. The Ormulum. Vols. I and II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Macauley, G. C. 19001901. The English Works of John Gower. Vols I & II. [EETS e.s.
81,82]. London: Oxford University Press.
166 OLGA FISCHER
Morris, R. 1876. Cursor Mundi. Four Versions. Part III. [EETS o.s. 62]. London: Oxford
University Press.
Morris R. 1965, with Pamela Gradon (eds), Dan Michels Ayenbite of Inwyt or Remorse of
Conscience. Vol.I [re-issue of 1866 text]. [EETS o.s. 23]. London: Oxford University
Press.
Smithers, G. V. 1987. Havelok. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
References
Brinton, L. J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Aspectualizers and
Post-Verbal Particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruyn, A. 1995. Grammaticalization in Creoles: The Development of Determiners and
Relative Clauses in Sranan [Studies in Language and Language Use 21]. Amsterdam:
IFOTT and Dordrecht: ICG Printing.
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect,
and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dressler, W. 1995. Interactions between iconicity and other semiotic parameters in
language. In Iconicity in Language, R. Simone (ed.), 2137. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1992a. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language.
Vol. II. 10661476, N. Blake (ed.), 207408. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1992b. Syntactic change and borrowing: The case of the accusative and
innitive construction in English. In Internal and External Factors in Syntactic
Change, D. Stein and M. Gerritsen (eds), 1788. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1994a. The fortunes of the Latin-type accusative and innitive
construction in Dutch and English compared. In Language Change and Language
Structure. Older Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective, T. Swan et al.
(eds), 91133. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1994b. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in
word order. Neophilologus 78: 137164.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1995. The distinction between to and bare innitival complements in
late Middle English. Diachronica 12: 130.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1996. The status of to in Old English to-innitives: A reply to
Kageyama. Lingua 99: 107133.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1997a. The grammaticalisation of innitival to in English compared
with German and Dutch. In Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Fest-
schrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, R. Hickey and S. Puppel (eds),
265280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1997b. On the status of grammaticalisation and the diachronic
dimension in explanation. Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 149187.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1997c. Verbal complementation in Early Middle English: How do the
innitives t in?. In English Historical Linguistics 1994, D. Britton (ed.), 247270.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1999. On the role played by iconicity in grammaticalisation processes.
In M. Nnny and O. C. M. Fischer (eds), 345373.
Fischer, O. C. M. and Leek, F. C. van der. 1981. Optional vs radical re-analysis:
Mechanisms of syntactic change. Lingua 55: 301350.
Fischer, O. C. M. and Nnny, M. 1999. Introduction: Iconicity as a creative force in
language use. In M. Nnny and O. C. M. Fischer (eds), xv-xxxvi.
Gerritsen, M. 1987. Syntaktische Verandering in Kontrolezinnen, een Sociolinguistische
Studie van het Brugs van de 13e tot de 17e Eeuw. PhD diss. Univ. of Leiden.
Dordrecht: ICG Printing.
Givn, T. 1995. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological
considerations. In Iconicity in Language, R. Simone (ed.), 4776. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Haiman, J. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language
56: 515540.
Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781819.
Harris, A. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.
Haspelmath, M. 1989. From purposive to innitive a universal path of grammat-
icization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287310.
Haspelmath, M. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible?. Linguistics
37: 10431068.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hnnemeyer, F. 1991a. From cognition to grammar: Evidence
from African languages. In E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), vol. I, 149188.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hnnemeyer, F. 1991b. Grammaticalization. A Conceptual
Holyoak, K. J. and Thagard, P. 1995. Mental Leaps. Analogy in Creative Thought.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A. 1984 The discourse basis for lexical categories in
universal grammar. Language 60: 703750.
University Press.
Janda, R. D. 1980. On the decline of declensional systems: The overall loss of OE
nominal case inections and the ME reanalysis of es as his. In Papers from the
4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, E. C. Traugott et al. (eds),
Jespersen, O. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part III
Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
168 OLGA FISCHER
Joseph, B. D. 1992. Diachronic explanation: Putting speakers back into the picture. In
Explanation in Historical Linguistics, G. W. Davis and G. K. Iverson (eds), 123144.
Kemenade, A. van. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of
English. Dordrecht: Foris.
Kyt, M. 1991. Manual to the Diachronic Part of The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts:
Coding Conventions and Lists of Source Texts. University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
Lass, R. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Leek, F. C. van der. 1992. Signicant syntax: The case of exceptional passives. Dutch
Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics 27: 128.
Lehmann, C. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change.
Lingua e Stile 20: 303318.
Lehmann, C. 1991. Grammaticalization and related changes in contemporary German.
In Traugott and Heine (eds), vol. II, 493535.
Lightfoot, D. W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lightfoot, D. W. 1991. How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change.
Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The Development of Language. Acquisition, Change, and Evolution.
Oxford. Blackwell.
Los, B. 1998. The rise of the to-innitive as verb complement. English Language and
Linguistics 2: 136.
Manabe, K. 1989. The Syntactic and Stylistic Development of the Innitive in Middle
English. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press.
Mustanoja, T. F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Part I. Helsinki: Socit Nophilologique.
Nnny, M. and Fischer, O. C. M. (eds). 1999. Form Miming Meaning: Iconicity in
Language and Literature. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Overdiep, G. S. 1935. Zeventiende Eeuwse Syntaxis. Groningen: Wolters
Plank, F. 1979. Ikonisierung und De-Ikonisierung als Prinzipien des Sprachwandels.
Sprachwissenschaft 4: 121158.
Rubba, J. 1994. Grammaticalization as semantic change: A case study of preposition
development. In Perspectives on Grammaticalization, W. Pagliuca (ed.), 81102.
Stoett, F. A. 1909. [2nd ed.]. Middelnederlandsche Spraakkunst. Syntaxis. The Hague:
Nijho.
Traugott, E. C. 1993. Subjectication and the development of epistemic meaning: The
case of promise and threaten. In Modality in Germanic Languages, T. Swan and O.
Jansen Westwik (eds), 185210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Traugott, E. C. 1995. Subjectication in grammaticalization. In Subjectivity and
Subjectivisation in Language, D. Stein and S. Wright (eds), 3154. Cambridge:
Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. 1991. (eds). Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vols I and
II, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Vincent, N. 1995. Exaptation and grammaticalization. In Historical Linguistics 1993, H.
Andersen (ed.), 433445. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Visser, F. Th. 196373. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Vols. I-IIIb. Leiden:
E. J. Brill.
Remarks on the de-grammaticalisation of
innitival to in present-day American English
Susan Fitzmaurice
Northern Arizona University
1. Introduction
Innitives split by negatives are becoming more noticeable in American English,
as exemplied by the following utterances transcribed from television broadcasts:
(1) We will send enough troops to not let Macedonia shut down its
borders. (William Cohen, NBC Today, April 5, 1999)
(2) You have to learn to not let it start.
(The Puzzle Place, PBS TV, March 16, 1999)
In addition, the coalescence of the innitive to into the quasi-auxiliaries going to
and have to seems to be reinforced by the occurrence in childrens language of
utterances like the following:
(3) You have to not say that word.
(4) Im going to not eat strawberries.
In this brief essay, I will examine the patterns of occurrence and pragmatic
motivations for these constructions in present-day American spoken English. I
will argue that the gradual regularisation of quasi-modals as auxiliary verbs on
the one hand, and the pragmatic utility of the negative split innitive on the
other hand provide support for the claim that innitival to is in the process of
de-grammaticalising. I will discuss plausible semantic-pragmatic motivations for
the de-grammaticalisation of innitive to, and comment on the extent to which
these motivations are reected in speakers behaviour. Finally, I attempt to
connect the processes of de-grammaticalisation and the ongoing development of
auxiliaries such as have to and be going to.
1
172 SUSAN FITZMAURICE
2. Background
2.1 Reversal of grammaticalisation of innitival to:
Fischer (1997, this volume) argues that the innitive marker to exhibited the
following signs of grammaticalisation in late Old English and early Middle
English:
strengthening of to by for (e.g. for to 14201500);
phonetic reduction of to;
loss of semantic integrity (e.g. use of to in non-purposive or goal-oriented
constructions, such as the stative: And in my barmther lith to wepe / Thi child
and myn And in my bosom there lies weeping thy child and mine. (Gower,
Confessio. Am. III 302);
occurrence of to-innitive after prepositions other than for.
However, by the end of the Middle English period, the trend seemed to be
beginning to reverse itself:
to ceases to co-occur with for in the standard language;
split innitives begin to appear, e.g. Blessid be ou lord o hevyn. / That
suche grace hath sent to his /Synfull men for to us lede / In paradice
(Cursor Mundi, Laud Ms. 1844044) 14th c.;
absence of reduction of scope you can use this shampoo to wash your hair
and clean your clothes;
no loss of semantic integrity: to is still strongly purposeful (He threatened
to kill her agentive interpretation as default).
For comparison, Fischer (1997) examines the fortunes of the innitive marker te
in Dutch, observing that by contrast with English, Dutch te exhibits typical
features of grammaticalisation, for example, increased bondedness with the base
form of the verb, loss of semantic integrity, and the reduction of the scope of the
innitive. It is striking that Fischer identies as a key construction in the de-
grammaticalisation of to, the split innitive. Of course, the split innitive most
commonly referred to in this context is the innitive split by adverbial elements,
as exemplied in to boldly go. This construction is a traditional bugbear of
traditional grammarians, and therefore its high prole militates against an
objective assessment of the progress of the de-grammaticalisation of the innitive
marker.
2
By contrast, the negative split innitive the construction split by a
negative operator has received rather less attention from prescriptivists and
has thus remained less obtrusive in speakers conscious linguistic behaviour. This
DEGRAMMATICALISATION OF TO IN AMERICAN ENGLISH 173
type of split innitive therefore seems worth further investigation.
It seems reasonable to argue that the development of quasi-auxiliaries with
to such as want to, be going to, be supposed to, be to, and have to is licensed by
the progressive de-grammaticalisation of the innitive marker to. That is, it
seems that to is allowed to coalesce with selected verbs to create periphrastic
auxiliaries, thus becoming part of the grammaticalisation process of another
construction, by virtue of its release from the innitive construction. One way of
connecting the two processes grammaticalisation of the to-auxiliaries and de-
grammaticalisation of the innitive to is to examine the eects and conse-
quences of the isolation of to.
Research on the history of English quasi-auxiliaries from the perspective of
grammaticalisation has been growing steadily (for example, Sweetser 1990;
Hopper and Traugott 1993; Fischer 1994; Brinton 1988, 1991). Fischer (this
volume) and Traugott and Hopper (1993: 81) underline the importance of the
purposive function of to in the development of the new modal auxiliaries with
future meaning, such as be going to. Traugott and Hopper (1993: 82) note, we
hypothesize that the future meaning of be going to was derived by the semantici-
sation of the dual inferences of later time indexed by go and purposive to, not
from go alone. They oer a full discussion of the history of be going to. Plank
(1984: 338339) oers a dierent perspective on the coalescence into modals of
to and the preceding verb (want, have, be going). He notes that these verbs are
unlike auxiliaries in that they occur with to, but that they allow the conjunction
[i.e. to ] to be reduced and contracted in informal speech even when this is not
fast speech, and before pauses, indicating that this to has grammaticalised and
become, as it were, axed to the matrix verb. Presumably this amalgamation is
possible because both to and the matrix verb express future modality. This amalgam-
ation of verb with the future/purposive to involves a process by which each element
itself undergoes the semantic bleaching associated with grammaticalisation.
Olga Fischers work on the de-grammaticalisation of English innitive to
(for example, Fischer 1997, this volume) explores the interdependence of the
history of the innitive and the semi-auxiliaries; I seek to contribute to the
literature by exploring the ways in which the regularisation of the English quasi-
auxiliaries with to interacts with the conventionalisation of the negative split
innitive, and their impact on the process of de-grammaticalisation of the
innitive marker to.
2.2 Systems of polarity and scope in negative VPs
The nature of the interaction of the quasi-auxiliaries with to and the negative
split innitive constructions centres on their relation to negation, and to the
systems of polarity and scope in the VP. The formal structural description of
each construction is dependent on the assignment of syntactic boundaries. In
other words, the regularisation of to quasi-auxiliaries involves the dissolution of
the boundary between the governing verb (have, want) and the complement VP
signalled by to. That is, the grammaticalisation of a quasi-auxiliary such as have
to in part consists in the shift from a structural description illustrated in (5a) to
that illustrated in (5b):
(5) a. [X have [to VP]
COMP
]
S
b. [X have to V]
S
The conventionalisation of the negative split innitive is similar; that is, the
placement of the negator after to, directly before the main verb in the subordinate
complement isolates the innitive to from its verb, arguably weakening the
traditional boundary between main clause and subordinate complement, even
shifting it. Compare the bracketing in (6a) with that in (6b):
(6) a. She decided not [to deliver the plan]
b. She decided to [not deliver the plan]
In (6a), the negator not has scope over the innitive VP and the innitive marker
to which marks the VP boundary. By contrast, in (6b) the negator not falls
within the scope of to, and within the VP proper. It is possible that the marker
to loses its grammatical innitive meaning in structures like (6b), and assumes
a pragmatic, purposive, meaning that is adverbial in avour and force. It
contributes to the positively negative meaning which is conveyed when not is
dominated in this way by to.
In this section, I examine the role of the negator in both constructions, with
the aim of demonstrating the contrary pressures placed on the innitive marker
as a consequence of the polarity and scope of the negative. Because the item that
splits the quasi-auxiliary with to and negative innitive constructions under
examination is a negator, and because the grammar of negation involves semantic
issues like scope and polarity which also aect verb grammar, I will review
ways in which negative scope and polarity may be aected by negative place-
ment with respect to the innitive to.
Huddleston (1984: 135) considers polarity a VP system as it species the
structures in the VP that express negation. Positive polarity is structurally
unmarked, whereas negative polarity is marked, either analytically, by the word
not functioning as dependent in the structure of the phrase, as in is not working,
or inectionally, by a negative form of the verb, as in isnt working. Negative
polarity is relevant to this discussion because the placement of the innitive
marker to relative to the boundary of the VP may have particular consequences
for the degree of negativeness, or the place of the negative on the polar continu-
um. Polarity has most commonly been explored with respect to synthetic and
analytic negation, so that synthetic negation conveys positive negation of a
proposition, e.g. shes unkind, analytic negation conveys neutral negation of a
proposition, e.g. shes not kind, and a combination of the two conveys negation
of a negative proposition, e.g. shes not unkind. However, the force of the latter
expression is neither an unequivocal denial of the negative proposition, nor an
armation of the positive proposition (see Matthews 1981; Adamson 1990 for
examples, and Horn 1989: 273308 for extensive discussion). Polarity is often
aected by the scope of a negator, and therefore I will combine their discussion
in what follows.
2.2.1 Negation of semi-auxiliaries with to
Scope and polarity are relevant in the construal of negation in semi-auxiliaries
with to. Semi-auxiliaries like going to, want to and supposed to accommodate a
choice of placement of the negator because of their periphrastic composition.
3
The examples in (7) illustrate the dierent force borne by the negator depending
upon its placement:
(7) a. Shes not/isnt going to make friends neutral negation
b. Shes going to not make friends positive negation
The positioning of the negator after the rst element of the quasi-auxiliary (7a)
places the whole VP within its scope, and is construed as straightforwardly
negative. By contrast, in (7b) the positioning of the negator after the quasi-modal
and adjacent to the main verb make removes be going to from the scope of the
negative. Note that this is the normal position for a negator in an auxiliaryverb
construction (does not make).
4
The very proximity of not to the proposition to be
negated appears to oer an opportunity for greater emphasis, and thus strength-
ens the force of the negation. By contrast, the opposite eect is reached in the
construction marked by negative raising (7a).
The pattern introduced above in (7) applies equally to quasi-auxiliaries such
as be supposed to and be to with similar emphatic eect.
5
(8) a. Shes not/isnt supposed to answer the question.
b. Shes supposed to not answer the question.
(9) a. Shes not to answer the question.
b. Shes to not answer the question.
Have to and need to appear less exible than these quasi-auxiliaries with respect
to the placement of negators and the resulting scope of negation. Firstly, not may
not appear immediately before the semi-auxiliary without being ungrammatical
((10a), (11a)). Placing not between the two elements (as in (10b) and (11b))
creates an expression that does not participate in the same system of polarity;
that is, it appears to imply that the subject has a choice of whether or not to
answer the question.
6
This construction as well as the negative constructed with
do-support ((10b), (11b)) cannot be interpreted as conveying positive or unequiv-
ocal negation. The only negative construction with need to and have to which
conveys denite positive negative force is one in which the negator occurs after
to, immediately before the main verb, as in (10c) and (11c):
(10) a. *She not has to answer the question.
b. She has not to/does not have to answer the question.
c. She has to not answer the question.
(11) a. *She not needs to answer the question.
b. She needs not to/does not need to answer the question.
c. She needs to not answer the question.
The semi-auxiliary have to presents problems of analysis in the negative; I leave
for now the question of how need (to) acts in the negative.
7
In semantic-pragmat-
ic terms, have to, like other modals of necessity, bears subjective meaning,
notably in its speaker-centred obligative force. But as illustrated in (10c), it does
not behave syntactically like other modals of necessity such as must. Specically,
the negative sentence (10c) says what it means; neither the modal nor its
modality is negated. By contrast, in the similar sentence (You must not say that
word) with must, while the modal is negated the modality is not (Palmer 1995).
The equivocal status of have to as a modal is highlighted by the fact that when
negated using do, and when placed into a question using do, the string have to
changes meaning. The semantic-pragmatic eect of negative placement using do
is to negate both the verb and its modal force, replacing the emphatic imposition
of obligation with a choice of whether to oblige or not. The meaning change thus
consists of a loss of force.
2.2.2 Negation and innitive VPs
In present-day English the usual position for not in non-tensed VPs is at the
beginning of the phrase (not to be working, not having seen) (Huddleston
1984: 136). As we shall see, negation associated with this position appears less
markedly negative than negation which places not after the innitive marker in
innitive VPs because of the pragmatic strength lent by the proximity of not to
the VP in its scope. Scope is a semantic feature that has been shown to be
important in the construal of modal meaning (Nordlinger and Traugott 1997). It
is relevant to the relation of the negator to the proposition expressed in the VP,
as it concerns the (variable) extent of negation in a construction, i.e. what falls
within the domain or inuence of the negator. In the following pair of sentences,
the placement of the negative does not change the scope of the negative:
(12) a. She decided not to identify the culprit but to ignore him
(>> she did not identify him)
b. She decided to not identify the culprit but to punish him
(>> she did not identify him)
In the rst example (12a) not falls outside the domain of the matrix verb, and
within that of the complement VP. The result is that the innitive complement
falls within the scope of not to yield subclausal negation, and the interpretation
that the proposition in the complement is negated. That is, it has the entailment:
she did not identify the culprit. In the second example (12b), although not falls
inside the innitive complement rather than being placed at the boundary of the
innitive VP, the scope of the negative is no dierent from that in the rst
example; it shares the entailment, she did not identify the culprit. However, it
might be argued that the greater proximity of the negator to the subordinate VP
by virtue of its placement after the innitive marker to gives an impression of
greater negative force. In addition, the negator falls within the scope of to, the
latter no longer innitive because of its isolation from the verb, but purposive.
So not only is the negative polarity of the second example (12b) greater than the
negative polarity of the rst (12a), it is pragmatically more forceful. This force
might be somewhat elaborately paraphrased thus: she decided to make no eort
in order to come to some identication of the culprit.
8
In the following innitive constructions governed by the predicative
adjective careful, the semantic scope of the negative does not vary with the
placement of not. However, the fact that not is included in the scope of to in
(13b) alters the force of the negative meaning inferred. In this example, the
purposive force of to seems quite clear; the negative innitive VP indicates why
she was careful:
(13) a. She was careful not to identify the culprit
b. She was careful to not identify the culprit
The positioning of not at the boundary of the innitive complement of the
predicative adjective species the scope of the negative as subclausal (i.e. she
was careful to not X). In (13b) the scope of the negative is restricted to the
domain of the innitive complement only. Despite the fact that the entailment is
the same for both examples, namely, she did not identify the culprit, the negative
force conveyed by (13b) is stronger than the force conveyed by (13a). Thus, in
addition to altering the scope, the positioning of the negator may have some
inuence on the strength of the negative and on the expression of purposeful
action. The adjacency of the negator to the verb in the sentence in (13b) appears
to encourage a more rmly negative reading than the position of the negator on
the innitive clause boundary. One likely contributor to this force is the invest-
ment of purposive force in to as a consequence of the interruption of the
innitive verb sequence by the negator.
3. Evidence for the de-grammaticalisation of innitive to in present-day
American English
3.1 Negative split innitive and purposive to
In order to examine the strength or weakness of to as an innitive marker, it
may be useful to examine the occurrence of the split negative innitive in
American English. If a range of verbs and predicates accommodate the split negative
innitive for a range of speakers in a range of dierent conversational situations,
this may indicate the independence of to from the (bare) innitive verb.
9
A search of the American Conversation Register in the Longman Spoken
and Written English Corpus (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan
1999), yields a number of split negative innitive constructions, including the
following:
10
(14) a. I cant aord to not do math again
b. trust me to not lock the keys in the car
c. It is safer for her to not deal with the quilt
d. I would really like to not work when I have kids
The rst example (14a) combines two negatives for extra emphasis; a reasonable,
but somewhat weaker paraphrase might be, I must do math again. In the second
example (14b) the innitive VP is a complement of a rhetorical imperative. This
is not a directive so much as an exclamation, and its function easily accommo-
dates the extra pragmatic strength oered by the placement of not. The positive
negative polarity of (14c) lends emphasis to the conversational implicature that
the subject should not be allowed to deal with the quilt, not that it would
benet her not to deal with the object. (14d) is strongly self-expressive, by
virtue of both the intensier adverb really and the positioning of not. This
example is further strengthened by not having the negator raised into the matrix
VP, which would be possible without changing the basic meaning: I wouldnt
really like to work when I have kids. The semantic-pragmatic dierence
between the raised construction just given and the corpus token in (14d) lies in
the greater certainty associated with the negation in the latter example.
Doug Bibers frequency count of the distribution of not relative to the
innitive marker to reveals that the split innitive occurs more frequently in
American conversation than in British conversation, and less frequently than the
unsplit (not to V) in American conversation (Fitzmaurice, Biber and Reppen
1998). The gures are reproduced in Table 1.
The gures in Table 1 suggest that while the split innitive is infrequent in
Table 1. Distribution of not relative to the innitive to (approximate frequency counts per
one million words)
not to to not
British Conversation (c. 4.2 million words)
American Conversation (c. 5 million words)
07
80
01
10
American conversation, it does occur. Although the proportion of to not construc-
tions is small, at a ratio of 1 : 8, I would argue that if examined in the light of
change in progress, these data are not negligible. In addition to occurring in
conversation, the construction is appearing regularly in the speech of middle-
class, educated adult Americans, from teachers and academics to announcers,
critics, and politicians who are regularly given voice in the American broadcast
media. (15) and (16) below contain samples of examples which I myself
collected recently from these contexts:
(15) a. Some departments seem to not be very interested in developing
a writing intensive course.
(male university professor of Linguistics I, department meeting,
Jan. 13, 1999)
b. Its only supercial to not have objectives as outcomes for this
[writing] course if were focusing on the process [of writing].
(female university professor of Sociology, Jan. 7, 1999)
c. The students hope to not get calls at that oce.
(male university professor of Linguistics II, Jan. 14, 1999)
d. It forces them to not run large classes and let them do journals
instead.
(male university professor of Linguistics I, Jan. 14, 1999)
These examples represent rather dierent kinds of structures in the matrix
clause, from raising verbs like seem in (15a), predicative adjectives such as
supercial in (15b), epistemic verbs like hope (15c), to verbs like force (15d)
which require raising to subject. This variation does not seem to alter the
pragmatic strength of the negatives place in splitting the innitive.
The occurrence of the construction in the expressive, pragmatically uctuat-
ing speech settings of public radio news magazine programs should not be
surprising. Placement of not immediately before the clausal complement arguably
focuses the negator with respect to the adjacent verb, with the rhetorical eect
of emphasis on the connection of negator and phrase governed by the verb.
Because the variable placement of the negator may result in a variation of
emphasis and accentuation, increasing use of the to not construction seems
pragmatically motivated. In these expressions, not has scope over the comple-
ment it precedes, its adjacency to the embedded verb lending it extra emphatic
force. As in the examples in (15), the self-collected examples in (16) exhibit the
range of matrix verb and predicate styles:
(16) a. You should also be briefed to not give him the keys to the
cabinet.
(male interviewee, (National Public Radio NPR) All things
considered, Sep. 28 1998)
b. Its going to be hard to not take advice.
(male interviewee, (NPR) All things considered, Sep. 28 1998)
c. He tended to not like people who refused to be subservient to him.
(male Sinatra biographer (NPR) Morning Edition, Dec. 9
1998)
d. We didnt expect Newt Gingrich to not be speaker of the House.
(Cokie Roberts, A Presidency at the Crossroads, ABC TV,
Dec. 18, 1998)
e. People like myself will vote to not remove the president from
oce.
(Senator Jay Rockefeller, W. Virginia (D), Meet the Press,
NBC TV, Feb. 7, 1999)
The construction also appears in written reports of spoken language. The
examples in (17) are quotations of speech, reported in my local paper, the
Arizona Daily Sun. Both illustrate the greater rhetorical force of placing the
negator immediately adjacent to the proposition being negated. The choice of
lexical predicate (be entitled) in (17a) enhances the emphatic, modal nature of the
negative expression. The positioning of not in second place in the innitive VP
as a subject nominal in (17b) gives it the heavy stress in an iambic foot, making
the negative prominent in the utterance.
(17) a. Disabled students are entitled to not be subject to discrimina-
tion. They are entitled to reasonable accommodations to give
them every opportunity that a student without disabilities has,
said Jane Jarrow, a nationally renowned expert on the ADA in
higher education.
(Conference considers reasonable accommodation for disabled
students, Arizona Daily Sun, Sat., Nov. 7, 1998)
b. This is 1999, were about to go into the year 2000. To not
have videotape available for senators, and maybe even beyond
that, is not defensible,
(attributed to Trent Lott, Senate Republican leader. Sex, Lies
and more videotape, Arizona Daily Sun, Fri., Jan. 29, 1999)
Finally, I have encountered the construction in the language of student papers.
The following, nal example is from an essay written by a female undergraduate
English major:
(18) Humankind is constructed to detest suering, to the extreme of
actually ending a life just to not have to witness the suering of
that creature for a moment longer than necessary.
(nal essay for English 253: World Authors. Female English stu-
dent, NAU, May 12, 1999)
This rather odd example is a sample of energetic opinionating. Note that the
innitive VP is adverbial in function; it is itself modied by the scalar adverb
just, and the innitive VP consists of semi-auxiliary have to. The appearance of
the split negative innitive, albeit in a vigorous rhetorical style, in student
academic writing suggests that it may be used in increasingly formal situational
contexts and registers, including written registers.
3.2 Semi-auxiliaries with to
Although semi-auxiliaries like have to, want to, be going to, etc. are well-attested
in speech and writing in positive declarative constructions, and are thus routinely
treated, in semantic terms at least, as more modal-like than verb-like (e.g.
Sweetser 1990; Kolln and Funk 1998), it is not clear how well they meet
grammatical criteria, such as the so-called NICE criteria for operators/auxiliaries
(see Denison 1993, Chapter 10 for details and caveats).
Let us briey review the extent to which these semi-auxiliaries in American
English do satisfy these criteria for auxiliary status. Have to, want to, be going to
and supposed to appear to act like auxiliaries with respect to Emphasis and Code
(post-verbal ellipsis). They may convey emphasis without do support (I have
to/want to/am supposed to/need to leave), and they can appear in a reduced or
elided form (Do I have to leave? Yes you do/yes you have to, etc.). However, few
of these semi-auxiliaries can participate in full Inversion with the subject to form
interrogatives (*Have to you leave? *Want to you leave? but Are you supposed to
leave? Are you going to leave?). Instead have to and want to require do support
(Do you have to leave? Dont you have to leave? Do you want to leave? Dont you
want to leave?).
11
If the semi-auxiliaries with to could be negated directly
(Negation), without do support, this ability would provide support for the
observation that the semi-auxiliaries had moved another step further toward
auxiliary status, as the placement of the negator would further separate to from
the (bare) innitive verb. This would arguably underline the coalescence of the
verb and particle elements, and thus provide support for claiming the ongoing
grammaticalisation of the form.
Although there is little readily attested evidence of have to with direct
negation in American English speech, there is good evidence for the use of
supposed to, want to and used to with following not. The American Conversation
Register in the Longman Spoken and Written English Corpus (Biber, Johansson,
Leech, Conrad and Finegan 1999), has examples such as the following:
(19) a. Both wanted to not nd out about the other
b. I know that Im supposed to not allow him enough time to talk
c. They used to not be like that
d. I dont think you ought to not eat
Other examples that I collected recently include the following:
(20) a. This was my nervous breakdown last year, but youve got to
not talk about it.
(white woman, about 30 years old. Overheard at MLA Confer-
ence, Dec. 29 1998)
b. You want to not be confused about whose mother is who at
kids birthday parties.
(female junior high school English teacher, Flagsta, Jan. 9, 1999)
These real-life examples illustrate how the elements in the periphrastic semi-
auxiliaries coalesce, isolating not. The consequence of such patterns of coales-
cence is a possible reanalysis of the structure along the lines described in
Section 2 above, so that the clause boundary is removed by the coalescence of
to with the preceding adjacent verb. In this scenario, the following verb is no
longer a bare innitive, but a main verb supported by an auxiliary containing to.
Examples such as these oer some evidence for the ongoing grammaticalisation
of the semi-auxiliaries at the same time as the de-grammaticalisation of the
innitive marker to.
4. Concluding squib
I have oered evidence from present-day American speech (and some writing)
to support the ongoing de-grammaticalisation of the innitive marker to. This
evidence consists of attested occurrences in adult speech in a range of situational
contexts of split negative innitives, as well as the direct negation of semi-
auxiliaries. Further work on the de-grammaticalisation of innitival to might
include the investigation of the occurrence and variation of innitive VPs which
have adverbial functions, in order to explore the extent to which the purposive
force that Traugott and Hopper (1993) and this paper claim is acquired by post-
innitive to is connected with the innitives capacity for adverbial meaning.
Notes
1. Nichols (1986) oers the English innitival marker to, which attaches to the main verb
(wanna, gonna), and the development of the English split innitive to illustrate the typological
migration of axes from dependent to head. Thus the process of de-grammaticalisation of
one grammatical function (innitive) that is involved in the grammaticalisation of another
(auxiliary verbs) may occur in accordance with general typological tendencies. The discussion
of this issue is beyond the scope of the present paper, but the connection appears to support
challenges to the strength of unidirectionality as a feature of grammaticalisation. I am grateful
to Anette Rosenbach for bringing Nichols work to my attention.
2. For an entertaining digest of the split innitive story, see David Crystal (1995: 195).
3. Although there are restrictions. In particular, not cannot be inserted between going and to
without turning go into a main verb and to into an innitive marker proper:
*Shes going not to make friends (but to inuence people)
The placement of the negator in this position appears to violate the semantic
integrity of the periphrastic modal.
4. It is also possible to add a negator to this example, to create a hedge; an equivocal denial of
positive negation: Shes not/isnt going to not make friends. This double negative and the fact
that it may be construed quite unproblematically makes use of the plasticity of the be going to
construction as one that is not fully grammaticalised as an auxiliary.
5. Note, however, that the periphrastic quasi-auxiliary be supposed to may accommodate a third
alternative for positioning the negator, with dierent results:
Shes supposed not to make friends.
The force of the negative in this example seems to be positive, but less positive than the
example of positive negation in the text. In British English, this sentence may be ambiguous,
such that it could be interpreted as an agentless passive: They suppose that she does not make
friends. In the same way that two negators may be added to the be going to construction, two
may be added to both be supposed to and be to, with the following results and consequences
for polarity:
Shes not supposed to not answer the question.
Shes not to not answer the question.
In both cases, the addition of a negator creates the negation of the second negator, so that each
is construed as a hedge; an equivocation. Both might be paraphrased as follows: Although she
might not answer the question directly, she must respond in some fashion.
6. An alternative treatment is to construe the have not to construction as part of a very conserva-
tive variety of British English, as she does not have to. Thus old-fashioned British English
has the following possible negative declarative with have to, in which dummy auxiliary do is
not used: You have not to go home now (=you need not go home now). This is related to the
use of possessive have without a dummy auxiliary do in the interrogative, Have you time to
look at this paper?
7. Need (to) has a long, complex history, and so is not directly comparable with the case of have
to.
8. In speech, the placement of not as in (12b) allows the negative to fall in a position in which
the nuclear pitch and an accompanying rising tone convey the force of utterance.
9. The split negative innitive types examined here may well be part of a broader group of
constructions in which the negator not interacts with to, whether innitive marker or preposi-
tion. For example, the following utterance makes use of the same strategy of placing the
negative for maximum emphasis: She may have reconciled herself to not getting everything. The
placement of the negator ensures that it bounds the gerund headed by getting. It is possible that
the regular placement of the negator after innitive to is inuenced by this non-innitive
construction.
10. I am grateful to Doug Biber for the information. The sampling for this sub-corpus was
demographically-based, so that informants were selected to represent a range of age, sex, social
group and regional dierences. The informants tape-recorded all their conversational interac-
tions over a week. The American sub-corpus has the conversations of 491 speakers, 292 female
and 199 male. There were 112 speakers under 20 years old, 114 between 21 and 30 years old,
and 265 31 years and older (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan 2000).
11. In British English, have to does not need do support to form interrogatives (Have you to
leave?), but it is arguable that this presents a counter-example to the argument for greater
grammaticalisation because the integrity of the coalesced have to is challenged by the fact that
the construction can be divided.
References
Adamson, S. 1990. The what of the language. In The State of the Language, C. Ricks
and L. Michaels (eds), 503514. London: Faber and Faber.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. The Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Brinton, L. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-
Verbal Particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L. 1991. The origin and development of quasimodal have to in English. Unpub-
lished Ms, University of British Columbia.
Crystal, D. 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge:
Denison, D. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Longman.
Fischer, O. This volume. Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversible? The case
of to before the innitive in English.
Fischer, O. 1977. The grammaticalisation of innitival to in English compared with
German and Dutch. In Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for
Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, R. Hickey and S. Puppel (eds), 26580. Ber-
lin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fischer, O. 1994. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word
order. Neophilologus 78: 137164.
Fitzmaurice, S., Biber, D. and Reppen R. 1998. Subjectivity, scope and the interaction
of negation and modality in English: Perspectives from grammaticalisation, corpus
linguistics and child language. Panel discussion presented at LASSO, Tempe, AZ.
October 11, 1998.
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 1993. Grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Horn, L. R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago/London: The University of
Chicago Press.
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kolln, M. and Funk, R. 1998. Understanding English Grammar, 5th edition. New York:
Allen & Unwin.
Matthews, P. H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nichols, J. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56119.
Nordlinger, R. and Traugott, E. C. 1997. Scope and development of epistemic modality:
Evidence from ought to. English Language and Linguistics 1 (2): 295317.
Palmer, F. R. 1995. Negation and the modals of possibility and necessity. In Modality
in Grammar and Discourse, J. Bybee and S. Fleischman (eds), 453471. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The role of person and position in Old English
Elly van Gelderen
Arizona State University
1. Introduction
Throughout the history of English, agreement endings disappear (as well as Case)
and word order becomes more xed. This change from synthetic to analytic can
be accounted for in dierent ways. In a Minimalist framework (Chomsky 1995),
one could argue that more Functional Categories are activated in the later stages.
It has been claimed (van Gelderen 1997a, b) that in constructions where verbs
move to a Functional Category such as the Complementizer position, there is less
agreement on the verb. In this paper, I examine these constructions in more
detail and examine whether there are dierences between the agreement on rst,
second and third person verbs. I show that verbs with rst and second person
subjects are more likely to lose their endings than those connected with third
person subjects. I also discuss pro-drop, which is more common with third than
with rst and second person. This ts if third person features are somehow
stronger on the verb (Sar 1985; Jaeggli and Sar 1989); or, alternatively, if
third person endings are still pronouns.
The Old English texts I examine are Beowulf, The Junius Manuscript, The
Exeter Book, The Lindisfarne Gospel of St. Matthew (which is a gloss to the Latin
text), some of Alfreds works and Aelfrics Homilies. Thus, poetry as well as
prose is included; Northumbrian as well as West-Saxon; translation from Latin
as well as original work.
1
In Section 2, I outline some assumptions I make and
provide some background on features and inection. In Section 3, I show that
rst and second person verbs lose agreement before third person ones. Section 4
discusses the relationship between null subjects and verbal inection.
188 ELLY VAN GELDEREN
2. Rich inection and movement
I assume that Old English is a language with movement of the verb to the
complementizer position when this position is available (e.g. in main clause
questions, cf. van Kemenade 1987). This accounts for the Verb-second nature of
Old English. Thus, constructions where a verb precedes a subject are ones where
the verb is in the Complementizer position. In a Minimalist framework (cf.
Chomsky 1995), verbs (and nouns) move to the I(inection) ) and C(omplement-
izer) positions in order to check certain features. If the features are strong, the
movement has to be overt, i.e. visible. Within this framework, Bobaljik and
Jonas (1993) argue that movement is in fact triggered by overt inection. My
data indicate another scenario. I show that verbs lose inection with rst and
second person pronouns when the latter follow the verb, i.e. when the verb is in
C. To account for the data, I argue that rst and second person features are less
specied and that this is especially noticeable (to be expanded on below) in C.
This is also the reason why null subjects occur with third person but not with
rst and second.
In Old English, the present and past (preterite) tenses are distinguished in
that, in the past tense, the weak verbs have a sux containing a dental, the
strong verbs have a stem change and the irregular verbs have suppletive forms.
For instance, a rst person present is ic lue I love and a rst person past is ic
lufode I loved. Person and number are generally distinguished for the singular
present tense, for instance, ic lue I love, u lufast you love, he/heo/hit lufa
he/she/it loves, but not for the plural: we lua we love, ge lua you-
love, hi lua they love (cf. Quirk and Wrenn 1955 [1977]: 43; also Campbell
1959: 295351, and Mitchell 1985, who follows Campbell). The subjunctive has
a singular -e ending and a plural -en. There are of course many variants and
many dierent verb classes (as will be shown below) but they all make similar
distinctions. For weak verbs in the past tense, the second person singular (-est)
is dierent from the rst and third persons singular (-e) and from the plural
(-on). Strong verbs in the past tense distinguish rst and third from second
singular as well. In the imperative and subjunctive moods, only singular and
plural are distinguished. Thus, number is consistently distinguished but person is
only sometimes.
In constructions where the subject follows the verb, verbal agreement is
often reduced. Jespersen (1942: 15) writes [i]n OE a dierence is made in the
plural, according as the verb precedes we or ge or not and Quirk and Wrenn
(1955 [1977]: 42) remark that [t]here are alternative 1 and 2 forms of all
tenses and moods in -e when the pronouns [] immediately follow the verb.
THE ROLE OF PERSON AND POSITION IN OLD ENGLISH 189
Campbell (1959: 296) says: [w]hen a pronoun of the 1st or 2nd pers. follows,
the endings -, -on, -en can be reduced to -e. To put these observations in
terms of verb-movement, it appears that, when the verb moves to C as in (1),
there is less inection (-e) than when it does not move as in (2) (-a). Sentence
(1) is an imperative, but the appropriate ending would be -a since ge is plural.
If it were a subjunctive, the ending should have been -en (the verb endings are
in bold):
2
(1) Beowulf, 2529
Gebide ge on beorge
Wait (you) on the hill.
(2) Beowulf, 1340
ge feor hafa fhe gestled
you far have a feud inicted
You have gone far to inict a feud.
The same phenomenon can be found in other languages, e.g. Dutch. In Dutch,
Verb-second is a main clause phenomenon and does not occur when an overt
complementizer is present. It has therefore been argued that the verb in a verb-
second construction moves to C (cf. den Besten 1983). The reason behind this
movement might be that certain features in C must be lexicalized. If this is
correct, one might expect more morphology on verbs in C than on those not
moved to second position. However, even though there is a dierence in
morphology in a number of cases, the morphology of verbs in C as in Dutch (3)
is no richer than of those not in second position as in (4). Under certain circum-
stances, as in (5), it is even weaker, i.e. zie see rather than the regular second
person ziet see-2S (cf. Abraham 1995 for similar evidence in German):
(3) Vandaag ziet zij een javelina
today sees she a javelina
(4) dat zij vandaag een javelina ziet
that she today a javelina sees
(5) Waarom zie jij die javelina altijd en ik niet?
why see you that javelina always and I not
The data in (1), (2) and (5) are unexpected in a system where overt inection is
linked to overt movement, as in e.g. Bobaljik and Jonas (1993) and Platzack and
Holmberg (1989). In the next section, I examine the factors that determine which
verb forms followed by subjects lack inection.
3. Inection and person
First, I focus on the relationship between rst and second plural inection and
overt movement. Then, I examine rst and second singular verbal inection. I
will show that in the plural, lack of agreement is extremely general in Verb
Subject (hence, VS) constructions by Late Old English, but that also in the rst
person singular, the loss has already occurred in most of the dialects, especially
the Southern (i.e. West Saxon) ones. The second person singular is complicated
but the pattern is that here too inection is lost. With third persons, there is no
evidence in Old English that the inection is lost.
3.1 First and second plural
In this section, I show that there is little evidence of reduced inection in
Beowulf and Junius, the earlier poetic texts; but there is some in The Paris
Psalter and in the later prose writings ascribed to Alfred (ninth century). There
is quite a lot of reduction in the Northumbrian Lindisfarne Gospels but this is not
related to person or word order. In texts by Aelfric, there is a lot of reduction of
rst and second person inection in VS constructions.
In Beowulf, there are 17 instances of ge you- as in (6). In two of these,
(7) and (1) above, the verb precedes the subject. One of the two, namely (7), has
full inection for plural
3
but the other one, namely (1), has reduced inection.
First person we occurs 25 times but in the two instances where the verb precedes
we, the inection is full as in (8):
(6) Beowulf, 2456
ne ge leafnesword gufremmendra gearwe ne wisson
not you password warriors completely not knew
You had no knowledge of the warriors password.
(7) Beowulf, 237
Hwt syndon ge searohbbendra
What are you warriors.
(8) Beowulf, 270
Habba we to m mran micel rende
We have for the celebrated a great message.
In Junius, 75 instances of we occur of which nine are inverted with the
inected verb. None of these are reduced. In the same text, there are 19 ge forms
of which two are inverted without loss of inection. In Exeter, of the 124
instances of we, 10 follow the verb and the only reduction is a change from -on
to -un and -an (e.g. in l. 1895). This reduction also occurs when the verb
follows the subject (e.g. in ll. 1834 and 2086) and seems therefore a regular
sound change. There are 91 ge pronouns with eight inverted. None of these have
reduced inection.
The metrical (West-Saxon) Paris Psalter has a number of reduced verb forms
when ge follows as (9) shows, but this is not consistent as (10) shows. Some of
these might be imperatives, but even then the expected ending would be -a:
(9) Paris Ps 74.4
Nelle ge unriht nig fremman
not-want you unjust any advance
Do not wish to advance evil.
(10) Paris Ps 61.10
Nella ge gewenan welan unrihte
not-want you imagine riches unjust
Do not imagine unjust riches.
Herold (1968: 52) gives a number of instances of reduced inection after we and
ge in Alfreds translation of Orosius. In the Meters of Boethius, ascribed to
Alfred, there are several instances of reduced verbal inection in VS construc-
tions such as (11), and (13) to (15). Checking the Helsinki Corpus (the pre 950
part), there are ve willa want- endings connected with we and four of
those have we preceding whereas only one has we following the verb. The
reduced form wille never follows we but always precedes it as in (13) and (14).
There are three instances of habba and in all, we precedes the verb; there are
two instances of habbe/hbbe and we follows these as in (15):
(11) Alfred, Meters 2.167
Forhwam wolde ge, weoruldfrynd mine, secgan
Why do you want, my friends-of-the-world, to say.
(12) Alfred, Meters 19.15
Hwer ge willen secan
Do you want to seek.
(13) Alfred, Boethius 85.8
Hwt, wille we onne secgan
What, do we want to say .
(14) Alfred, Boethius 22.23
Ac hwt wille we cwean
(15) Alfred, Pastoral Care, 45.12
onne hbbe we begen fet gescode
then have we both feet shod.
A substantial change in inection can be seen in the tenth century Northumbrian
Lindisfarne Gospels. For instance in Matthew, there are 134 instances of ge and
56 of we but the present tense inection is changed, as in (16), in many of the
cases. In fact, Holmqvist (1922: 2) mentions that, apart from solitary earlier
instances, Lindisfarne, The DurhamRitual and the Northumbrian part of Rushworth
(not discussed here) are the rst texts where -s appears this way (and in third
person singular and plural). The word order seems irrelevant as the two forms in
(16) show. The imperative ending too is often changed as in (17), especially
when the pronoun is present. I nd 11 instances of the -(a) ending in both
present indicative and imperative, and subjunctive. The West-Saxon version of
(17) provided in (18) is interesting since the ending is present but the pronoun is
not. This is also true in the Mercian section of The Rushworth Gospels as in (19):
(16) Lindisfarne, Matthew 3.9
nllas ge cuoea bitiuh iuih fader we habbas abraham
and not-want you say between you father we have abraham
And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham as our
father.
(17) Lindisfarne, Matthew 7.7
gebiddas ge gesald bi iuh soeca ge ge inndes
ask you and given be you seek you and you nd
and ge begeattas cnysa and cnyllas ge and un-tyned bi iuh
and you get knock and strike you and opened be you
Ask and it shall be given you; seek and you shall nd; knock and
it shall be opened for you.
(18) West Saxon, Matthew 7.7
Bidda eow bi geseald. secea ge hit nda cnucia eow bi
ontyned.
(19) bidda eow bi sald. soeca ge gemoeta cnyssa eow bi
ontyned.
Since the loss of inection is one across the paradigm and not related to word
order, I disregard it here.
Checking Aelfrics Catholic Homilies (rst and second series, abbreviated
as Hom I and Hom II, from the Dictionary of Old English version), all but
two VS constructions in the rst series have reduced inection with ge as in (20)
and (21), and all but two with we as in (22) to (24). There is a suppletive form
sint that does precede the subject. In the second series, there are 384 instances of
ge, of which 69 are VS. All but three of these lack inection on the verb (but
seven involve the suppletive sint). In the same text, there are 677 instances of we,
of which 52 are inverted. All but one of these lack inection (three involve sint).
Some of these might be imperatives, but that means the ending is still reduced:
(20) Hom I, 280.4
Nu hbbe ge gehyred
now have you heard
(21) Hom I, 286.15
Ac wite ge t nan man
but know you that no man
(22) Hom I, 88.32
Nelle we s race na leng teon
nor want we that argument not long pull
(23) Hom I, 154.223
Nu hbbe we t leoht on urum mode and we habba
now have we that light on our mind and we have-3
(24) Hom I, 158.25
Nu bidde we
now ask we
For convenience, the results for the two series of Homilies are summarized in
Tables 1 and 2. To give an idea of the number of VS constructions, Table 1
gives the total number of VS constructions involving rst and second person
plural. Since the verbal endings on SV are not lost, I only provide the data on
inection in VS constructions in Table 2. As full inection I have included both
present -a endings as well as preterite -on endings (subjunctive -en endings do
not occur):
Concluding, in early Old English, there is some loss of rst and second
plural endings. However, by the time of Aelfric, practically all verbs followed by
we or ge lack inection.
3.2 First and second singular
Compared to Gothic -a and Old Saxon -u, the Old English inection with rst
person present singular is reduced to -e, especially in the Southern dialects. In
these dialects, the -e occurs early on. The older Germanic forms are still found
in the heavy (Anglian) endings -o and -u. Sievers/Brunner (1942: 282283) take
Table 1. First and second person plural VS word order in Aelfrics Homilies
VS non-VS total
Hom I
1 P we
2 P ge
54 0(8%).0
51 (12%).0
627
373
681
424
Hom II
1 P we
2 P ge
52 0(7.7%)
72 (18.8%)
625
310
677
382
Table 2. First and second person plural inection and VS order
Inection: -e/ full suppletive total
Hom I
1 P
2 P
49
46
2
2
3
3
54
51
Hom II
1 P
2 P
49
61
1
4
2
7
52
72
-u to be the older and -o to be the younger. These and an occasional -a occur in
Mercian and Northumbrian dialects. Beowulf, is a Southern text in this respect
since, out of 181 instances of ic in Beowulf, there are only three forms with a
full ending as in (25) to (27). They all occur in SV constructions. There are two
instances of possibly further reduced inection with wen(e) as in (28) and (29);
both VS constructions; when the word order is SV, the ending is as in (30). They
might also be subjunctives, but then their ending would be expected to be -e:
(25) Beowulf 2150
ic lyt hafo
I have little.
(26) Beowulf 2523
foron ic me on hafu
bord ond byrnan
Therefore I have on me a shield and a coat of mail.
(27) Beowulf 3000
s e ic wen hafo
that of which I hope have
(28) Beowulf 442
Wen ic t he wille
Hope I that .
(29) Beowulf 338
wen ic t ge for
Hope I that you .
(30) Beowulf 279
s ic wene
That I hope .
This is all the evidence I nd in Beowulf. I disregard the past tense since with
strong verbs, there is no ending and with weak verbs, there is only an -e. In the
Junius Manuscript, there are no unreduced endings and in the Exeter Book, there
are three instances of hafu, one of which occurs in a VS structure, and two occur
in an SV structure as in (31):
(31) Exeter, Riddle 35, 5
Wundene me ne beo wee, ne ic wearp hafu
wound me not are woofs nor I warp have
Woofs are not wound for me, nor have I a warp.
Checking the Helsinki Corpus (OEI-II), there are 54 rst person endings in -u
and 14 in -o, and except for three, all of these are SV. All are from the Vespa-
sian Psalter, which is Mercian, presumably of the ninth century (cf. Kuhn 1965).
Sievers/Brunner (1942: 283) claim von den merc. Texten hat Vesp. Ps. ganz
berwiegend -u, bzw. bei den schwachen Verbis der II. Kl. -iu, seltener -o bzw.
-io, daneben je ein ebidda, seca und einige e-Formen. In the Northumbrian
Lindisfarne Gospels (I have only examined Matthew), the -o ending is strong.
In texts such as Alfreds Pastoral Care and Aelfrics Homilies, the special
endings have disappeared and only -e occurs. For instance in the two volumes of
Supplementary Homilies, there are 293 instances of ic but none are connected to
verbs other than ones ending in -e. Thus, the rst person -o ending has disap-
peared by Late Old English, but the -e ending is common. A solid link between
VS and inection cannot be found.
Comparing the Old English second person singular with its Gothic and other
Germanic counterparts, one notices the addition of a -t to the -s ending. Most
Old English grammarians argue that it arose in inverted forms, e.g. ritstu <
rides u (Campbell 1959: 297), and that the earlier ending is found in some
texts (Quirk and Wrenn 1955: 42). Jespersen (1942: 6) agrees that -st is no
doubt due to the frequent use of combinations of verb and the pronoun. The
development is said to have occurred independently in Old High German where,
up to the present day, the second person present tense is -st. Later on, in English,
the -t is lost again, starting in the North. This scenario seems unlikely for the
following reasons: (a) if forms such as hafest originate in hafestu, one expects tu
to replace u but tu is very infrequent; (b) it is unexpected to have the same
development in dierent languages, i.e. in Old English and Old High German;
(c) forms such as hafestu are infrequent (15 times in the Old English part of the
Helsinki Corpus; once in Junius; once in the Paris Psalter). For these reasons, I
assume that in Old English the regular second person ending is (already) -st but
that this ending may be weakened to -s.
There are 69 instances of second person singular inection in Beowulf and
even though 11 of these are inverted, the inection is not reduced as, for
instance, (32) shows:
(32) Beowulf 1221
Hafast u gefered t
You have achieved that.
In Junius, there are 201 instances of the second person singular and six of the 41
inverted ones have less inection as in (33), i.e. -es rather than -st. In Exeter,
there are 318 second person singular pronouns. Many are inverted but the ones
with zero or -e agreement, as in (34) to (36), are mainly imperative or subjunc-
tive, and thus not reduced. Sentence (34) may be an imperative and then the
ending is expected. Sentence (35) could be a subjunctive in which case the -e is
expected and (36) is an imperative. The pronoun is never tu, which would be
expected if the reduction to -s originates in the contraction of the V and pronoun:
(33) Junius, Christ and Satan 59
Wendes u urh wuldor t u woruld ahtest
believed you through splendor that you the world own
(34) Exeter, Juliana 878
Dem u hi to deae swa to life lt
judge you her to death or to life let
(35) Exeter, Christ 1487
For hwon ahenge u mec
why did you hang me
(36) Exeter, Resignation 59
Forstond u mec ond gestyr him
defend you me and restrain them
In Alfred, there are a number of reductions. Sweet (1871: xxxiv) says [t]he
ending of the 2nd pers. sing. occasionally appears without the nal t as in (37).
In the Pastoral Care, even though verbs in VS constructions generally have no
ending, one -st precedes u. Thus, instances of full inection usually occur with
SV order, but not always as (38) shows:
(37) Pastoral Care, 193.3
onne hafas u in we[d] geseald
then have you your pledge given
(38) Pastoral Care, 207.11
e u on iugue worhtes
which you in youth wrought
Checking the Helsinki Corpus (pre 950), some more instances from Alfred can
be found:
(39) Boethius, 118.29
For hwylcum orum ingum woldes u t sprecan
for which other things wanted you that say
(40) Boethius, 122.289
hwerne woldes u deman
which wanted you to judge
In the Lindisfarne Gospels (again just Matthew is examined), some -st endings
occur when the subject precedes the verb, in addition to -s ones. The ratio is
12:9. When the verb precedes, there are no -st endings (there are two suppletive
wilt forms), but 20 -e(s) ones. Thus, word order is relevant here.
In Aelfrics Homilies, there are many instances of reduced inection in VS
structures, which is expected if the inection on a second person singular verb
is gradually lost. There is less reduction than with rst and second person plural.
Thus, in Aelfrics second series of the Homilies, there are 454 instances of the
second person singular pronoun, but at least half of these do not lose their
inection. The pronoun is never tu, again indicating that the verbal ending is not
reduced because of the contracted form.
3.3 Third person and feature weakness
As to third person inections in inverted constructions, there is little evidence of
a lessening in the Old English period (at least where pronominal subjects are
concerned). Later on, the ending changes from - to -s, rst in the North. The
Northern paradigm has -s throughout (except for rst person singular).
Jespersens (1942: 17) explanation for the change is that s is more ecient
than -. According to Sievers/Brunner (1942: 284), the reason is ungeklrt, but
the replacement occurs more frequently in the plural than in the singular. This is
the same as with rst and second person, where the plural changes before the
singular.
No instances of reduced inection are found with third person in Beowulf.
No evidence of reduced inection when the third person pronoun follows the
verb can be found in Exeter. The Northumbrian Lindisfarne Gospels has both -s
and - but in both SV and VS order. In Aelfrics two volumes of Supplementary
Homilies, he occurs 1443 times and even though there are at least 40 instances
where the verb is followed by a subject, none indicate reduction.
So far, I have examined the relationship between inection and movement
and have concluded (a) that agreement occurs somewhat less often when the verb
precedes the subject, i.e. when it is in C, and (b) that agreement is lost especially
in rst and second persons. Third person verbs do not show reduction. Conclu-
sion (a) presents problems for an approach that links rich morphology and overt
movement, as is the case in Bobaljik and Jonas (1993) and Platzack and
Holmberg (1989). That link must therefore be questioned, and the person split of
(b) must be accounted for. Regarding (a), in van Gelderen (1997a), I suggest that
agreement checking in C does not check all features and that it may not check
certain un(der)specied features. Regarding (b), it may be possible that third
person features are cliticized pronouns, but that rst and second ones are not.
Pronouns such as he would be adjuncts, i.e. dislocated elements. I will not
pursue this option, but the availabity of third person pro-drop (as outlined in the
next section) may point in that direction. Another possibility is that person
features may have dierent specications and that this makes it possible for
some endings to disappear. If third person is more specied, it becomes under-
standable that these features are not lost. First and second person features on
verbs are less specied and are lost early on. If true, this would explain the
person split. Additional evidence for the strength of third person features is that
third person pronouns are frequently left out as will be shown in the next section.
4. Pro-drop
Evidence for the dierences in strength between the dierent pronouns also
comes from null subject (or pro-drop) data in Old English. In Modern English,
as is well-known, an empty subject is possible with innitives as in (41). This
subject is referred to as PRO and has the features of its antecedent, i.e. rst
person singular in (41); a tensed clause cannot have a null-subject as (42) shows:
(41) I like PRO to talk to myself.
(42) *pro am talking to myself.
Languages such as Spanish and Italian have null subjects as in (42). In order to
distinguish between (41) and (42), the terms big PRO and little pro were
coined. There has been a debate at least since Chomsky (1982) as to how PRO
and pro are licensed (e.g. Jaeggli and Sar 1989). The problems with big PRO
are that it is both a pronominal and an anaphor, has no governing category and,
even though it is an argument, it does not have Case. PRO is not relevant here
and hence, I will not go into it deeper. Regarding little pro, some (e.g.
Taraldsen 1978; Huang 1984) have argued that strong agreement is responsible
for the appearance of pro; Ura (1994) argues that pro is licensed by Case or phi-
features. I assume these accounts are correct and that pro can be licensed by
specied person features.
There is a phenomenon that resembles pro-drop, namely Topic-drop, that
occurs in Modern English, as in (43). It does not take place when an adverb or
complementizer occupy CP, as (44) shows. The structure of these is not related
to feature licensing:
(43) Hope to see you soon.
(44) *Tomorrow hope to see you.
As to pro-drop in Old English, one of the better known instances is found in
some of the many versions of Caedmons Hymn:
(45) Nu scylun hergan hefaenricaes uard
now must praise heavenly-kingdom guard
(46) Alfreds translation of Bedes Eccl. Hist (Sweets AS Reader)
Nu we sculan herian heofonrices Weard
This poem exists in many versions and in some, as in (46), we appears. (45) is
the Northumbrian version, probably from the eighth century and (46) is a West-
Saxon one, from the tenth. Visser (1963: 4) lists many others in Beowulf. Many
of these, e.g. as in (47) to (49), are in embedded nite clauses and can therefore
neither be PRO or Topic-drop:
(47) Beowulf 5679
t syan na
that since-then never
ymb brotne ford brimliende
on broad water-way seafarers
lade ne letton
passage not let
that they after that never kept people from passing that water.
(48) Beowulf 67
t healreced hatan wolde
that palace command would
medorn micel men gewyrcean
meadhall large men to-build
that he would order his men to build a palace, a big meadhall.
(49) Beowulf 300
t one hilders hal gedige
that that battle-storm unhurt endure
that they will withstand unhurt the heat of the battle.
Thus, early texts such as Beowulf display pro-drop. Visser also lists instances
from The Exeter Book (Juliana) as in (50), Junius (Exodus, Daniel), Judith,
Alfred as in (51) and Aelfric as in (52). So does Schrader (1887) for Aelfric. In
(51), a could be taken as a subject rather than as an adverbial. However, there
is a second pro-drop after onne:
(50) Juliana 142
Het hi a swingan
ordered her then beat
He ordered her beaten.
(51) Alfred, Orosius, 86.7
sume men secga t a beteran wren onne nu sien
some men say that then better were than now are
Some men say that the tides were better then than they are now.
(52) Hom I, 316.23
namon a to rede,
They took then to council .
Discussing the use of subjects in Aelfric, Ropers (1918: 1) argues that the subject
pronoun is not always expressed but mostly it is added to the Latin where the
subject need not be expressed. He does not mention a person split.
In the Lindisfarne (Northumbrian, i.e. Northern) interlinear translation of
Matthew, pro-drop occurs frequently. This may be due to the attempt to translate
the Latin text (where pro-drop is frequent) word by word. As I show below,
however, there is a systematicity to pro-drop which can only be explained if pro-
drop is part of the syntax. Instances of pro-drop are (53) to (56). Skeats edition
also includes a Mercian and two West Saxon texts and the West Saxon versions
have less pro-drop, e.g. none in these examples:
(53) Matthew 8.26
et dicit eis quid timidi estis modic dei
cue to him hut frohtende aron gie lytlo geleafa
and says/said to them what fearing are you little faith
and he says to them why do you fear, you of little faith.
(54) Matthew 9.37
Tunc dicit discipulis suis messis quidem
a cue egnum his hripes solice
then says/said disciples his harvest truely
Then he says to his disciples about the harvest truely .
(55) Matthew 12.44
tunc dicit
a cueoe
then says/said
Then he says .
(56) Matthew 17.20
dicit illis propter incredulitatem uestram
cue him fore ungeleafulnise iurre
says/said them for unbelief yours
he says to them because of your unbelief .
If third person is in fact more specied as I argue is the case in Old English, one
would expect pro-drop with third but not with rst and second because an empty
subject would be licensed through the strength of features. This is indeed the case. In
the rst 20 lines of Beowulf, there are ve third person instances of pro-drop but
none with rst person. In (57), an instance of third person pro-drop is given:
(57) Beowulf 711
He s frofre gebad
he that- consolation- waited
weox under wolcnum weormyndum ah
[He] grew under clouds- honors- grew
o t him ghwylc ara ymbsittendra
until him every of-the people-around-
ofer hronrade hyran scolde
across sea obey should
gomban gyldan.
tribute pay
He was consoled for that. He grew up. His honor grew until
everyone of the neighboring people on the other side of the sea had
to obey him; had to pay him tribute.
Representative instances of a lack of pro-drop with rst person are (58) and (59):
(58) Beowulf 2903
Ic t gehyre t is is hold weorod
I that hear that this is friendly army
frean Scyldinga. Gewita for beran
to the lord of the Scyldings Go on carrying
wpen ond gewdu. Ic eow wisige
your arms and armor I you will lead
swylce ic maguegnas mine hate
just as I will command my men (to )
(59) Beowulf 3358
Ic eom Hrogares
I am Hrothgars
ar one ombiht. Ne seah ic eleodige
messenger and ocer Never saw I foreign
us manige men midiglicran
so many men more courageous.
Wen ic t ge
I hope that you
The vast majority of Vissers examples is with third person. Berndt (1956)
argues that pro-drop in late Old English occurs more with third person than with
rst and second (as opposed to Modern English). In his examination of late Old
English verbal inection, Berndt also tabulates the increased use of personal
pronouns. His tables indicate a clear rst/second versus third person split. For
instance, in the early tenth century Durham Ritual, which shows fewer pronouns
than the other texts examined, 87% of the rst person singular pronouns appear;
78% second person singular; 7% of the third singular; 98% of rst person plural;
93 of second person plural and 17% of third person plural. Berndt divides The
Lindisfarne Gospels and The Rushworth Glosses in two parts each because one
part of the latter is from a dierent dialect area than the other. The gures for
indicative constructions for the presence of rst person singular are 96%, 99%,
97% and 96%; for second person singular 87%, 93%, 88%, 90%; for third
singular 21%, 15%, 54%, 16%; for rst plural 100%, 99%, 98%, 98%; for
second plural 95%, 95%, 89%, 83%; third plural 29%, 20%, 52%, 19%.
Berndt does not discuss the dierent kinds of pro-drop but looking at some
verb forms, the split becomes obvious. In the rst 30 occurrences of Latin dico
I say, seven are preceded by ego I whereas in the Northumbrian 29 ics are
present, i.e. 22 have been added. Of the six occurrences of faciam I make, none
have a subject pronoun in Latin but all have ic added in the Northumbrian
version. So pro-drop with rst person is not frequent. In (53) to (56) above, pro-
drop with third person is much more frequent. Of the four occurrences of dicit
he says, the Northumbrian version adds he only once; of the 14 occurrences of
facit he does, 13 have a specied NP or relative subject but one has pro-drop
(Matt 5.45) in the Latin and the Northumbrian. As mentioned, Skeats edition
includes a Mercian and two West Saxon texts and the latter generally have less
pro-drop.
Even though in general pro-drop is less frequent with rst and second person,
there is no direct relationship that texts with full verbal inection will drop the
subject pronoun. For instance, in Rushworth 2, the rst person -o endings are
very present (cf. Berndt 1956: 97) but pro-drop is not. First and second person
features are weaker but this comes out dierently in dierent texts.
Thus, the occurrence of pro-drop with third person subjects provides
evidence that third person features are more specied and that the pronoun can
therefore appear as pro. Cross-linguistically, there is evidence that rst and
second person features are weaker. For instance, Sol (1996: 236) presents
evidence from Italian dialects where rst and second person object pronouns as
in (61) need not trigger agreement on the participle whereas third person ones as
in (60) do:
(60) Le ha viste/*visto
them has seen-rrx.ii/seen-x:sc.sc
S/he has seen them.rrx.
(61) Ci ha viste/visto
Us has seen-rrx.ii/seen-x:sc.sc
She has seen us.rrx.
Pro-drop in the Old Dutch Wachtendonckse Psalmen also follows the Old
English pattern. For instance, van der Wal (1992 [1994]: 98) claims that rst and
second person pronouns were present in the majority of cases.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, I show that fronted verbs (situated in C) have less agreement. This
is especially true with rst and second person subjects. I account for this by
saying that these features are less specied on the verb. If this is true, it accounts
for the fact that pro-drop is least common with rst and second person. Third
person features are specied, i.e. pronominal and third person pronouns can be
left out.
Notes
1. I have used computer-readable versions provided by the Oxford Text Archive and the
Dictionary of Old English project together with TACT.
2. Two kinds of glosses are provided. The one is a word-by-word gloss and the other, enclosed
in single quotation marks, provides a freer translation. I do not always provide both since the
meaning is often clear from the word-by-word gloss; and sometimes a word-by-word gloss is
redundant.
3. With most verbs, the -on ending is a preterite. In the case of the so-called present-preterite
verbs, where the past tense forms are used for the present, such as witan know, sculan have
to and cunnon know, the -on ending indicates a present tense. This is also the case in the
suppletive form syndon, which is a present.
Texts
Godden, M. (ed.). 1979. lfrics Catholic Homilies, the second series. London: Oxford
University Press.
Klaeber, F. (ed.). 1950 Beowulf. Boston: D. C. Heath [1922].
Krapp, G. (ed.). 1931. The Junius Manuscript. New York: Columbia University Press.
Krapp, G. and Dobbie, K. E. V. (eds). 1936. The Exeter Book. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Kuhn, S. (ed.). 1965. The Vespasian Psalter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Pope, J. (ed.). 19678. Homilies of Aelfric: A Supplementary Collection, volumes I and II.
London: Oxford University Press.
Sedgeeld, W. (ed.). 1899. King Alfreds Old English Version of Boethius. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Skeat, W. (ed.). 1887. The Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Cambridge: University
Press.
Sweet, H. (ed.). 1934. King Alfreds West-Saxon Version of Gregorys Pastoral Care.
London: Oxford University Press [1871].
References
Abraham, W. 1997. Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Tbingen: Gunter Narr.
Berndt, R. 1956. Form und Funktion des Verbums im nrdlichen Sptaltenglischen. Halle:
Max Niemeyer.
Besten, H. den. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive
rules. In On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, W. Abraham (ed.), 47131.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bobaljik, J. and Jonas, D. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic
Inquiry 27 (2): 195236.
Campbell, A. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and
Binding. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gelderen, E. van. 1997a. Verbal Agreement and the Grammar of its Breakdown.
Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Gelderen, E. van. 1997b. Inection and movement in Old English. In Problemsyntax,
W. Abraham and E. van Gelderen (eds), 7182. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Herold, C. 1968. The Morphology of King Alfreds Translation of the Orosius. Den Haag:
Mouton.
Holmqvist, E. 1922. On the History of the English Present Inections particularly -th and
-s. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Huang, J. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry
15: 554561.
Jaeggli, O. and Sar, K. (eds). 1989. Introduction. The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Jespersen, O. 1942. Modern English Grammar VI. London: Allen & Unwin.
English. Dordrecht: Foris.
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Platzack, C. and Holmberg, A. 1989. The role of AGR and niteness. Working Papers
in Scandinavian Syntax 43: 5176.
Quirk, R. and Wrenn, C. L. 1977. An Old English Grammar. London: Methuen [1955].
Ropers, K. 1918. Zur Syntax und Stilistik des Pronominalgebrauchs bei lfric. Kiel:
Schmidt & Klaunig.
Sar, K. 1985. Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schrader, B. 1887. Studien zur Aelfricschen Syntax. Jena dissertation.
Sievers, E. 1942. Altenglische Grammatik nach der Angelschsischen Grammatik,
neubearbeitet von Karl Brunner. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Sol, J. 1996. Morphology and word order in Germanic languages. In Minimal Ideas,
W. Abraham et al. (eds), 217251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Taraldsen, T. 1978. On the NIC, vacuous application and the That-trace lter. Indiana
University Linguistics Club.
Ura, H. 1994. Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure theory.
MIT Occasional Working papers in Linguistics 7.
Visser, F. 1963. An Historical Syntax of the English Grammar. Leiden: Brill.
Wal, M. van der. 1992. Geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Utrecht: Aula.
Remarks on (uni)directionality
Roger Lass
University of Cape Town
If it cannot be shown that a pet hypothesis has better support than one or more
alternative explanations, then (in my opinion) we should either propose none
of the possible explanations or all of them to be responsible historical
linguists, we will sometimes have to say that we dont know and cant guess
what happened in some particular historical situation. My subtext is that it is
a mistake to believe (as a considerable number of historical linguists apparent-
ly do) that a weakly-supported explanation is always better than no explanation
at all. (Sara Grey Thomason 1993: 485f)
1. Scene-setting
The hypothesis of unidirectionality (UD) is a central pillar of the theory of
grammaticalisation (GR).
1
In its basic form (see e.g. the important, and now for
students canonical, textbook exposition in Hopper and Traugott 1993), it consists
of at least these dening claims:
1. There exist in processes of (morphosyntactic) change pathways or clines
along which constructions and lexical items proceed during their evolution.
One major pathway is {lexical > grammatical} (including {less grammatical
> more grammatical}), with lexical or content items typically ending up in
their most grammaticalized form as inectional morphs. Other pathways
include {free > bound}, {objective > subjective}, etc.
2. Movement on any cline is unidirectional; degrammaticalisation is at the very
least extremely rare, so rare in fact that even clear cases are not
counterexamples to (1).
2
208 ROGER LASS
3. The apparent strength and empirical support for (1)(2) enable a universal
claim: that all grammatical items in natural languages ultimately derive
from lexical items (see below).
The UD hypothesis is important and inuential; it also raises such interest-
ing philosophical, methodological, and empirical problems that it deserves some
detailed unpacking and critical examination. My concern is not with the general
question of whether there are indeed very common cross-linguistic phenomena
that show what has come to be seen as characteristic or by now traditional
UD: there are, and thats a fact (or perhaps factoid: we will see). But what kind
it might be is a less straightforward matter. For instance:
i. Is UD a principle of language change, or simply a very common phenomenon?
In other words (see 78 below) is it a thing or a reication? If the latter,
what is it that is being reied? A number of other questions, largely concerned
with empirical accountability, follow from this:
ii. If the answer to (i) is (reasonably) positive, is UD a strong enough principle
to be used as a basis for reconstruction, rather than simply a phenomenon
to be (more or less) expected, recognizable post hoc, but not predictable?
iii. Are the canonical grammaticalisation pathways or clines well-dened
enough to be uncontroversially recognizable? I.e. are oppositions (or more
weakly, cluster-points on clines) like lexical/grammatical, free/bound,
major/minor category, objective/subjective, etc. clear enough so that
researchers not predisposed to nd unidirectional GR lurking behind most
morphosyntactic change can recognize them and agree where on any cline
a particular item is? (See 2)
iv. Does a GR theory with the standard foundations (including UD) risk
becoming impregnable? (A theoretical bag that contains everything in the
world might just as well be empty as far as empirical accountability goes.)
Is GR at least with respect to directionality claims an invulnerable
orthodoxy rather than an empirical theory?
v. Following from (iv), is GR suciently articulated as an empirical theory so
that it can specify its potential falsiers either for the theory globally, or
for particular exemplications?
vi. What is the statistical structure of the universe over which GR phenomena
are dened, and is it well-formed enough to be an empirically satisfactory
domain?
In other words, what is the role of counterexamples, and can a suciently large
number of them be massaged so that they cannot be turned into potential
REMARKS ON (UNI)DIRECTIONALITY 209
falsiers? Does GR theory contain protective blocking devices?
Of all of these issues, the most central and philosophically important is the
universal claim (3) about the source of grammatical items. Hopper and Traugott
(1993: 128f) formulate it this way:
To date there is no evidence that grammatical items arise full-edged, that is,
can be innovated without a prior lexical history in a remote (or less remote)
past. Some grammatical items show enormous longevity, and we cannot look
back into their pre-history. Among the highly stable grammatical items with no
known lexical origin is the Indo-European demonstrative to-. Given the
unidirectionality hypothesis, we must hypothesize [emphasis mine] that to-
originated in some currently unknown lexical item. We do not know what
that item was. But neither do we know that there was none, or indeed that
there might theoretically have been none.
Before getting down to details (like the question of whether the available
evidence actually supports such a claim), it would be worth unpacking the rather
odd argument in the last two sentences. It boils down to an interesting and
complex case of what I like to call the Grandmothers Balls argument, after a
wise old Yiddish proverb: az di bobe volt gehat bejcim, volt zi geven majn zejde
(if my grandmother had balls shed be my grandfather).
3
The particular
argument here is a kind of circuitous derivation, which seems to be deconstruct-
able as follows:
a. If my grandmother had balls shed be my grandfather.
b. However, she apparently doesnt, at least on the surface.
c. But since at the moment shes fully dressed, theres no reason why she
couldnt.
d. Therefore my grandmother is my grandfather.
If this is a fair (if lightly parodied) construal, we have an argument that is pretty
poor even for reconstructive history, which is not, as normally practised, known
for the sharpness of its argumentation (see Lass 1997: passim). But in addition
to this metalinguistic failure, there are more signicant empirical problems as well.
For instance, as Ill show below, in at least two major and historically well-
known language families (Indo-European and Uralic), it is impossible to make a
case for lexical origin with respect to most of the older grammatical material.
Could there perhaps be language types that simply have always had grammatical
items that were just that? If so, forcing the strong form of UD on all data may
simply leave an empty promissory note on the table, or get us from linguistics
proper into the murky and ill-dened world of hypothetical palaeolinguistics
(56 below).
210 ROGER LASS
2. On lexicality: Preliminary confusions
How far are the notions lexical and grammatical determinate or publicly
denable? Even though in the literature theyre dened as cluster-points on
clines rather than (necessarily) absolute categories, they are still assumed to be
something like natural kinds (GR thinking is fundamentally essentialist):
otherwise there would be no point in having clines at all, and placing objects on
them in relative positions, and no theory.
There are probably cases where just about nobody would disagree: stone is
lexical and -s in stone-s is grammatical (an ax), and so is -s in stone-s (a
clitic: as it happens, a clitic that historically derives from an inection, and thus
goes up the hierarchy the wrong way: see note 2). This would be true both in
terms of content (plural and genitive are prototypically grammatical), and
categoriality (so are axes and clitics). Similarly L lapis is lexical, or at least
lapis, and -i-, -s are grammatical but in somewhat dierent ways: -i- is merely
a theme or declension marker (where do these t in the grammaticality hierar-
chy?), and -s is nominative , a marker of a grammatical relation. Similarly
accusative sg lapidem: lexical lap-, thematic -i-d-, and axal -em.
To put it another way, slightly hocus-pocussy but within the bounds of
conventional praxis: a morph in a complex word belongs to a lexical category if
in a bracketing according to one set of traditional protocols we would want to
put two brackets around it, and to a grammatical (thematic, axal or clitic) one
if we would not: so [[stone]s], [[[lap]id]em], etc.
But sometimes obviously grammatical items (e.g. case-markers) carry so
much lexical, ontological or pragmatic weight, in short semantics that they
seem just about as lexical in everything except form and/or degree of boundness
as other uncontroversially lexical items in the same construction. Take for instance:
(4) The prince became a frog
Aside from uncontroversially lexical prince and frog, there seems no doubt that
became is a full lexical verb (if maybe more abstract than ate or kissed). And
there would be just as much lexicality in the predicators in semi-paraphrases like:
(5) The prince turned into a frog
(6) The prince underwent a change of state such that he became a frog
(7) The prince shifted from the natural kind human to the natural kind
frog
But precisely this degree of semantic loading is carried in some languages by
items that are clearly, by all the normal criteria, grammatical e.g. case
markers. Consider for instance the Balto-Finnic translative case. The normal
translation of any of the above in Finnish would be
4
(8) Prinssi muuttu-i sammako-ksi
prince change-i:s1 frog-1s
The element -ksi is clearly just as much a case marker as the accusative or
genitive sc -n in sammako-n, the inessive -ssa in sammako-ssa in the frog, the
ablative -lta in sammako-lta from the (exterior of) the frog, etc. Formally, there
is no dierence in boundness between the nal elements in [[sammako]n] and
[[sammako]ksi]. There are even phonological markers of this boundness: the
translative triggers medial consonant gradation like any other sux producing
a non-initial closed syllable within the (non-compound) word: kukka ower,
with degemination in the inessive kukassa /ku.kas.sa/, translative kukaksi
/ku.kak.si/ according to the standard syllabication, similarly joki river, joessa,
joeksi, etc. (one of the gradations of /k/ is zero).
Some of the uses of the translative may seem a bit less lexical, at least in
the sense that they can translate fairly obviously with rather more grammatical
classes of elements (glosses for translative in bold):
(9) Hn ei sovi talo-n-poja-ksi
he not.be.3.sc suitable house-crN-boy-1s
he isnt suited to be a farmer
(10) Sa-i-n kirja-n lahja-ksi
receive-i:s1-1sc book-:cc present-s
I received (a/the) book as a present
(11) Mit sano-n X Suome-ksi
how say-1sc X Finnish-1s
How do I/does one say X in Finnish?
But the true paraphrases, given the overall use of the translative, would be
more like:
(12) He isnt suitable to be in a state such that he is a farmer
(13) I received the book it having been transformed into a present
(14) How do you change the state of X so that it becomes (from whatev-
er else it was) Finnish?
This may be pushing things a bit, but it does raise a point worth discussing: how
much of what we call lexical and grammatical is based on particular canoni-
cal instances in particular canonical languages (like English, German, French)
212 ROGER LASS
that the bulk of workers on grammaticalisation habitually conduct their discourse
in? Are our judgements of prototypicality as objectively cross-linguistic as we
seem to think? Or do we (unconsciously) often take translation-equivalence as
one of our main criteria?
So perhaps mere formal categoriality is not in itself an index of grammat-
icalness. Finnish can in fact furnish a reverse instance. Presumably, in any
commonsensical hierarchy, a negating operator would be more grammatical than
lexical. In Finnish, however, the most common negator is a verb, which normally
occurs as the nite verb of a predication, with any following verb in the inni-
tive. It is moreover fully inected:
(15) e-n menn- tal-oon
Nrc-1sc go-iNr1 house-iii:1ivr
5
I dont go into the house
(16) e-i menn- tal-oon
Nrc-3sc go-iNr1 house-iii:1ivr
he/she/it doesnt go into the house
And so on. This prototypically grammatical operator assumes the full panoply
of lexical characters, in particular serving as a stem that takes inections.
Would we want to say that e- is grammatical by virtue of its semantics (surely
a lexical property), but lexical by virtue of its morphology (which is certainly
under any interpretation more grammatical)?
3. What is unidirectionality a theory of?
This is not quite as inane a question as it sounds. It is not entirely clear, at least
to me, what UD really is, or what its about. Is it a claim about language-
histories as landscapes viewed by historians? If so, its patently wrong if it
attempts to be exclusivist, but it hasnt yet developed a way to cope with
counterexamples except to say that theyre rare. So are pandas, ightless birds
and bacteria that metabolize sulfuric acid. The problem of what a theory of
rarity really means is a dicult one: it certainly bedevils all thinking about
markedness, naturalness, and the like. This is the problem with explanation by
universals in general (see Lass 1975 on markedness): the odder a type is, the
fewer languages we should expect to show it. Does this mean anything? Is it
anything more than a tautology? Is rarity a property of (a) language? Is there
a distinction between the properties of a universe and the properties of its
members? At the moment, all we can say about the extant examples of reverse
grammaticalization, etc. is that theyre surprising (see Campbell 1991; Harris and
Campbell 1995). Another way of putting the question: does GR so far say more
than that if we nd ve counterexamples we ought to be ve times more
surprised than if we nd none, but that we have no further responsibilities? (See
the next section for discussion.)
6
UD is also problematical in another way, if it attempts to project (see the
next section) beyond a certain kind of typological barrier (again, the discourse at
the moment is restricted to UD as a kind of observational claim about a
domain). There appears to be something impermeable before GR in its modern
sense got started, and this barrier may be methodologically destructive (56).
On the other hand, is UD a theory about human cognition? Obviously in
some hands it attempts to be, but in fact even then it is still really only a set of
claims about frequently-observed pathways: except that these then projected
primarily on the grounds of their observed frequency, but with a certain amount
of bolstering from (possibly erroneous) ideas about preferred types of human
action to a timeless universality. There is a larger problem here too: an
implicit claim, as in all views of universal tendencies, that there is only one
human mind, trans-cultural and uniform, and capable of being penetrated
hermeneutically by any other human being. All such universalist theories in
essence deny the role that culture and history may play in human mental activity
(Lass 1997: ch. 7). Of course there must be a residue of penetrability, since
despite dierences we do all share the same evolved cognitive capacities and
metaculture (Tooby and Cosmides 1994). But how far can this be taken? The
observational interpretation is ontologically less specic, and so safer; the
universalist one is more daring, and apparently vulnerable.
But is it vulnerable enough to have empirical content? Or dont we expect
linguistic theories (as opposed to those in other domains) to be cast in such a
way that they specify (or could specify in principle) their potential falsiers? At
least its clear that no argumentative framework in which positive examples
count and negative ones dont can really be more than a set of inductive
generalizations. It is certainly not a theory in the strong sense.
4. The nature of the UD universe
One problem hinted at in the last section is that it appears that nobody seems to
have done the kind of sampling of really big corpora that would show us if
UD-believers intuitions correspond with reality to any respectable degree of
statistical signicance. (This may be a lack of knowledge of the literature on my
214 ROGER LASS
part, but the sort of thing were after just doesnt, and as well see maybe cant,
exist.) Whats worrying about virtually all directionality, markedness, etc. claims
is that they are generally not based on properly constituted corpora, or operate
over ill-dened universes. Say in the course of your work you have found 542
changes that conrm a direction, and none that dont. Question is, 542 out of
what? Does a UD-believers inability to nd the counterexamples, and/or the
observed frequency of the conrming instances, reect a real property of the
domain or merely the accidental tendentiousness of a chosen data base? Note that
not nding things is an argumentum ex silentio, which is not at the top of
anybodys hierarchy of epistemic goodness.
That is, theres a big worry about whether any inductive historical general-
izations are safe (or at least theoretically interesting), because the eld over
which theyre being dened is not (and may in principle not be able to be)
statistically well formed. There seems to me to be, in much GR work, no proper
antecedent denition of what constitutes an individual or even a population.
And at least the latter must be dened, because ultimately any empirical claim
over populations must be able (at least in principle) to meet some criteria of
signicance.
7
That is, a lot (how much we dont know) depends on what one happens
(contingently) to know, and what one is looking for. What is obscure or absent
in the literature is a clear denition of the universe over which directionality
predictions are being made. Is there really one at all? Has anybody worked as
hard to nd counterexamples as UD proponents have to nd conrming cases?
To take a rather priggish but not outlandish position, until youve stipulated a
well-formed universe and prior denitions of signicance, and said what will
count as a refutation, you have not actually made an empirical claim.
8
That is,
say some UD believer nds those 542 changes going in the right direction, and
I (whose exposure to languages and their histories is of course partly dierent
from his) nd 3 going the wrong way. All this says (so far) is that this is the
way the numbers happen to come out. But without stipulating a corpus size and
composition, we do not and cannot know whether this is a freak distribution
(maybe the next 500 examples will go in the wrong direction too, or maybe the
next after the next ). That is, the ratio 542:3 may be an artifact; perhaps if we
looked at 3000 more changes the gures would come out no better than
chance.)
9
In other words, are we simply on to a crazy run (50 heads in a row),
or something lawful? The methodological point is that no matter how many
instances of X are put forward, they dont really count (even though they suggest
conrmation) until the believer can stand up and say at least roughly (a) how
many non-X will make him recant, and (b) how many out of what number in the
rst place.
We must remember that the (putative) domain is actually all the language
changes that have occurred and will occur, bolstered or quasi-justied by the
implicit (inductive) belief that the sample conventionally being worked with is a
fair one. And of course nobody seems to have done more than scratch the
surface of the available data. As a community of linguists, historians or not, we
do tend to nd the sheer number of cited UD-favourable examples suggestive,
even impressive; but the problem remains. The actual corpus is still rather like
the corpus of all species: nobody knows how many there are, and its not even
clear how to nd out. I have seen biodiversity estimates running from our
knowing 1% of the existing species to something closer to 60% or so, and since
the remaining 99% or 40% are undiscovered, this is not very satisfactory.
In our discipline the problem is made worse by the fact that even within
what is conventionally called a language, there may be so many varieties that
just using (as is normally the case) one or two can be dangerously misleading.
For instance, one talks about English: but the Survey of English Dialects clearly
shows (and this is undercounted) 314 quite distinct varieties in England and the
Isle of Man alone; and nearly all of these lack detailed histories. In most
published descriptions of English, for instance, it would be made clear that
unlike German and most other Germanic languages, it does not have front
rounded vowels. But in fact this is really only the case for some very archaic
rural dialects in England, some US dialects, and RP and its relatives; more
English dialects than not lack anything like /u:/, and have front rounded (or at
least very advanced central rounded, which might count for the same thing)
vowels in the historical categories represented by e.g. words like goose, nurse.
The point is not this little factoid, but what its implications might be. A
survey of languages with and without front rounded vowels might include
English and Yiddish as the two Germanic languages without any; but if in a
larger if still coarse sample one construed Scots, standard South African English,
New Zealand English, Sloane Ranger English and RP as distinct languages
(which is phonologically reasonable), then four out of ve Englishes in fact do
have them, so the numbers are skewed in a completely dierent way. The only
language none of whose varieties seem to have any turns out to be Yiddish
(probably). And if we remember that each of these varieties has an at least partly
independent history, we could be in trouble just on the basis of our way of sampling.
216 ROGER LASS
5. UD and uniformitarianism
relaxing methodological criteria in order to make an explanatory hypothesis
possible does not advance our knowledge of language or its history.
(Thomason 1993: 492)
As I noted in 1, a major aspect of UD to some writers its natural conclusion
is the claim that all grammatical material is ultimately lexical in origin. Lets
call this strong UD, as opposed to the more temperate weak UD, which is an
inductive statement of commonly observed tendencies, pathways, etc.
10
Strong
UD is methodologically problematical, and probably untenable. The argument
goes like this:
i. All sound historical theories are uniformitarian or actualist; the laws and
boundary-conditions governing their domains must be isotropic in time and
space.
That is, the laws of nature do not change. This has been the foundation-stone
of rational historical science since Lyell (183033): a time when everything was
dierent is in principle unavailable to history.
ii. The claim that all grammatical material is ultimately lexical means that
there was a time when all human languages were isolating (in the days of
Homo erectus or whatever everybody spoke Vietnamese).
iii. No period for which we have attested linguistic data, nor even any period
reconstructable by standard methods (given the corpus of all language-
families that allow investigation at reasonable time-depths), shows anything
other than roughly the current distribution of isolating, agglutinative and
inectional/fusional languages.
iv. Among these languages are many the bulk of whose morphology (inec-
tional and/or derivational) shows no evidence of earlier lexical sources, and
no possibility of reconstructing any.
v. Therefore positing a period when there was a law that says all languages
are isolating, and all their material is lexical (or similarly, following Givn
1979, that all languages were once SOV) is counter-uniformitarian, and so
methodologically inadmissible.
Note that this contrasts sharply with the organic fossil record, which shows long
periods of minimum diversity: it was once a law that all living organisms are
cyanobacteria, it was once a law that all plants are non-owering, etc. But this
presupposes an theory (such as exists in biology) that accounts for increase in
typological or phyletic diversity over time, and there is no such theory in linguistics.
The source of this problem is unclear: either languages have always been
this diverse, or we face the equivalent of encountering the fossil record for the
rst time at the end of the Cretaceous. Either way, the issue is the same, except
that language gives us no evidence for earlier pre-modern states, whereas both
the post-Cretaceous fossil record and the existing biota do: we still have cyano-
bacteria and ferns.
vi. Therefore a warrant for reconstructing a very non-diverse domain must be
stronger than one for reconstructing a period when all the current typo-
logical varieties existed if in dierent proportions; this is a matter of
statistical tact, not substance.
11
None of this would be particularly troublesome, if, not for the following:
vii. There are very well studied language families (e.g. Indo-European, Uralic,
Dravidian, Semitic) in which the bulk of the inectional and derivational
material in the (well-justied) protolanguage as well as in the surviving
daughters is not traceable to any lexical source. As far back as you can get
by standard reconstructive methodology theres only morphology. (See the
following section.)
ix. Therefore any universally more uniform state (e.g. a world in which Indo-
European is isolating and all its morphs are lexical) is not reconstructable
by comparative method, internal reconstruction, or any other known
projective technique.
x. Therefore any claim that Indo-European or its putative ancestor(s), from
Proto-World down to Nostratic,
12
must have been (lexical-only) isolating
at some point is a non-payable promissory note based on projection back to
an (a) in principle unobservable, and (b) untestable, because unreconstruct-
able, domain. It is palaeolinguistics, not linguistics.
xi. Since uniformitarianism has failed (or been abandoned) here, there is no
guarantee that it would succeed elsewhere.
Who is to say that in a linguistic world so dierent from ours that it has no
morphology but only lexis the {lexical > grammatical} or {free > bound} or any
other pathways didnt run the other direction? (Induction fails in universes non-
isomorphic to the one in which the induction is made.) By giving up one set of
constraints we lose our motivation for retaining any others, since all our con-
straints are based on inductive generalizations over the set of existing languages.
I think the discussion so far allows these preliminary conclusions:
I. No UD claims can be made for any domain that is dierent typologically
(particularly in terms of allowed diversity of type) from the set of all
observed languages (past and present).
218 ROGER LASS
II. By denition, any UD claim that derives all nonlexical morphs from lexical
ones is then made over a domain like that dened in I: hence it cannot hold
for language-in-general in the sense in which it is the subject-matter for
modern linguistics, since the claim is not being made about the subject
matter of modern linguistics.
III. Hence strong UD cannot form part of linguistic theory.
Now its true that a lot of hard work has reduced, or should we say lexied,
the amount of what may once have been thought to be original morphology.
E.g. the -b- sux in Latin imperfects and futures can be plausibly traced to
grammaticalisation of *bhu- be, remain, and the Germanic weak verb sux to
*dhe:-/dho:- place, put, do (though this is more controversial). But this is only
one side of the problem.
6. The grammatical in principio
Here is a small list of items, which, along with an argument to be given a bit
later, seems to show that Hopper and Traugotts IE *to- example might be a bit
disingenuous, or at best misleading. It is not in fact a strange isolated case, but
rather closer to the norm. To take some further Indo-European examples, nobody
has ever found a lexical source for the rst-person pronominal and athematic
verbal *-m-, the deictic *kw-, the feminine marker *-a:, the neuter *-d, the acc
sg *-m, the thematic verb present 1 sg -, and so on. Even when some of these
have been traced back to dierent categories (e.g. the feminine marker *-a: to
an old collective), these are still axal. And given current (and probably even
conceivable) reconstructive techniques, and what has survived from older Indo-
European, it seems unlikely that anybody will ever nd lexical ancestors. There
is simply no evidence for any more substance ever being attached to these items.
It looks rather as if (say in the Latin copula with its various grades) it is words
that are made (historically, in real time) out of lexical roots and bits of original
morphology. E.g. if we take *es- be, and *-m- 1, we can combine them
into the word sum; similarly with *es-t, etc. The only lexical element is *es-; all
the rest is morphology as far back as you can go.
13
The case of Balto-Finnic is similar. According to the standard accounts,
14
the canonical lexical root structure in Proto-Uralic, as still in modern Balto-
Finnic languages like Finnish and Karelian, was *(C)VC(C)V-. Monosyllabic
lexical items (in fact monosyllables in general) are rare in these languages;
virtually the only free monosyllables in Finnish for instance are conjunctions like
ja and (probably a Gothic borrowing), jos if, kuin when, etc.
15
Even the few
monosyllabic roots are usually not fully lexical, but represent relatively grammat-
ical categories, like deictics (t- this, ku- who), or the negative verb e-. Or
they are derivational morphs, like -ja agentive. Many important formatives can
be reconstructed only as consonants (e.g. *-c- living being, object, *-l- loca-
tion, movement, *-kk- diminutive: Collinder 1960: 773). To turn to
inection, none of the cases are reconstructable as looking anything like lexical
items: all are monosyllabic, and some are combinations of other nonlexical bits:
so Proto-Uralic *-m accusative, *-n genitive, *-nA locative,
16
*-tA parti-
tive. In Balto-Finnic these were combined with other nonlexical material to form
new cases, e.g. *-s- lative +*-nA > -sna > -ssa inessive, *-l- lative +*-tA >
-lta ablative. These items are not only unwordlike in syllabic structure, but also
contain illegal initial geminates or clusters not reconstructable for any Proto-
Uralic or Proto-Balto-Finnic words or lexical roots. As far as any known
evidence tells us, these elements were always what they are now, and still
function the same way. It will not do to say that on theoretical grounds that there
must have been a (now eroded) lexical item, only it happens to have left no trace
(cf. the Grandmothers Balls discussion in 1). Languages with this kind of
morphology typically do not have much in the way of words anyhow, but
rather build themselves out of roots and unanalysable sub-word elements.
In fact, given such languages, one could conceive an argument (here only
a bit of kite-ying), which if pursued properly could turn UD on its ear. Why
should there not be a type of language in which typically lexical words are made
out of grammatical morphs? One could imagine a case where a prex meaning
motional and one meaning directional (surely grammatical items) could fuse
into a verb meaning turn or go. Why not? This is not to say either that such
languages actually exist (I dont know), or that if they do they had no lexical
morphemes originally; only that there are both kinds, and perhaps a preponder-
ance of the latter, so that a lot of things that are expressed in non-agglutinative
languages by word-like elements are handled by concreted axes. This cannot
be ruled out in principle, if on no other grounds than the frequent occurrence of
word-stems that contain bits of derivational or inectional morphology that have
fused onto stems (phonogenesis). Thus G fressen (cf. Gothic fra-itan), glauben
< OHG gi-lauban, etc.; or best of all, the relict accusative in the now unanalys-
able French rien < re-m.
This may be the right place for some exemplication, by means of a kind
of innite regress reconstruction. This is a particularly neat and clear instance of
a solid counterexample to the claim for lexical origin of inectional material as
a universal. We might call this the case of the Proto-Proto Barrier. Since the
220 ROGER LASS
end of the nineteenth century at least (Anderson 1879; Sweet 1900), it has been
clear to many writers that there is some kind of anity or distant relation
between Uralic and Indo-European, though its not clear precisely what kind it
is. The most radical claim is that there is a common protolanguage, conservative-
ly Indo-Uralic, more radically the larger Nostratic, which contains not only
these families but perhaps Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, etc. (depending whose
account you read: see the discussion in Lass 1997: ch. 5). One of the classic
markers of this anity is the so called Mitian or Me-Thee phenomenon:
the presence in both Indo-European and Uralic of a marker in /-m-/ for the rst
person (pronominal and verbal), and /-t-/ for the second person. A few examples:
(17) Indo-European
personal endings of athematic verb: Skr, Gr 1 -m-i, -t-i, L 1
-m-us, -t-is;
pronouns: 1 L m-e, OE m-e, 2 L t-e, OE -e.
By standard comparative reconstruction, the Proto-IE forms of these markers
must be *-m-,*-t- respectively.
(18) Balto-Finnic
verb: Finnish, Karelian, Estonian 1 -n < *-m, 2 -t (Est -d), 1
-mm-, 2 -tt-;
pronoun: 1 Finn min-, Kar mie, Est m-(in)a; 2 Finn sin- Kar
ie, Est sin-a < *t-in-V.
By the same argument as for (17), the markers must be reconstructed as Proto-
Finnic *-m-, *-t-; and the same would hold for Proto-Uralic. Given the results of
(1718), since there is only identity of endings, the ancestral maximal forms
(Indo-Uralic, Nostratic, whatever) must of course also be *-m-, *-t-.
A lot more data would be needed to make a really convincing case, but
these examples at least suggest that UD is simply an observable but by no means
indefeasible tendency. The picture seems rather like this: out of two possible
directions, lexical > grammatical, and grammatical > lexical, the rst is statisti-
cally commoner, so metaphorically preferred. But there is a further turtles all
the way down possibility: much of the grammatical morphology in the worlds
languages has never been anything else. There are good methodological argu-
ments that this must have been the case; the reverse direction is not generally
discussed, and the evidence is weak, but some well-known phenomena (hinted at
in rien above) suggest that there are processes by which some irreducible
morphology can become part of some lexis.
The point is that there is no grounding for the claim that because (now) we
observe that lexical > grammatical is a very strong (if not indefeasible) pathway,
we can therefore say that all todays morphology is yesterdays lexis. As it
stands, this is simply a non sequitur, not a strong empirical (or any other
respectable) kind of claim.
Now of course the reconstructive barrier suggested by the *-m-, *-t- and
other examples may be an artifact of weak technique: if we really understood
comparative method better, wed be able to get behind the 10,000-year or so veil
that seems to block us so often. But this is not just a peculiarity of Indo-Europe-
an, as weve seen (and the same demonstration would be available for Dravidian
and Semitic). If it were just an artifact, it would be surprising that it was so
common in languages that have just the kind of structure that seems to favour it,
and not in languages that appear to have been isolating forever. This reinforces
the suggestion that there are just dierent kinds of languages, and some of them
have morphology all the way down (or up or back), and nothing we might want
to believe can provide evidence that this was not the case. Except of course a
desire to believe; but if we claim that all grammatical material has a lexical
source regardless of the evidence, this is a confessio dei, not linguistics. In
linguistics or other rational subjects matters of faith and works are distinct, and
works win.
7. Possible reasons for (some) unidirectionality
Anyway, the real problem, or one of them, seems to be: if there are indeed
unidirections, why are there? Are they due to something interesting, or if they
exist, merely to rather boring facts like if you lose enough information during an
information-losing process, you end up with zero, which is kind of a black hole
out of which you cant extract anything? In that case, at least some posited clines
are tautologies. If you reduce a lexical item of the shape CVCVCV to an ax of
the shape C, theres precious little left to tell you what it once was, so of course
you cant get enough information to reconstitute it. Even worse for deletion.
OK then, why if there are clines (and lets forget for the moment the
question of the ill-denedness of terms like lexical, grammatical, bound,
bonding ) do they look the way they do? One answer is something that
characterises innumerable natural systemspositive feedback or autocatalysis.
There are all kinds of processes in the world in which if you do X, this generates
a propensity to do more X. E.g. think of the way a ball gathers speed rolling
down an inclined plane, or more generally the way an object accelerates under
gravity: the behaviour is a consequence of the maths, not of whoever or whatever
222 ROGER LASS
is doing the behaving. If the acceleration of a falling body is a function of its
mass times a gravitational constant, then theres nothing about the body itself
that determines how fast it (ideally) falls: whatever its all about is the nature
of falling, under a regime of (physico-mathematical) law, not properties of the
bodies that happen to come under the inuence of the law.
In other words, how much of what seems to happen in GR is really GR or
linguistics at all, and how much might be general autocatalytic or feedback
behaviour, to be expected in any similar circumstances, and therefore less
interesting, at least from a strictly linguistic point of view? Unidirectionality,
insofar as it does exist (and thats another question) might be simply the kind of
behaviour you expect in an evolutionary landscape where ow-paths converge on
attractors. (Virtually, in fact, a dynamical denition of what an evolution is.)
Which is to say, unidirectional pathways are a part of the mathematical furniture
of the world in all domains, and if you nd them in language change then its
not surprising that they are unidirectional, because thats how theyre dened. Or
if that sounds weird, if X exists and you look for X and nd it, then X exists.
Theres a parsimony issue tied up in all this, which is perhaps the most
important point of all. Let there be two accounts for some phenomenon, one
domain-specic and the other operative in many domains (under a suciently
abstract construal, anyhow). In this case the less domain-bound one is more
parsimonious, because it invokes less in the way of ontological specicity. UD
then may not be a property of languages except derivatively; it is a property of
epigenetic landscapes of particular kinds, and similar phenomena can be found in any
domain meeting the requisite conditions, i.e. the possibility of structural loss.
17
8. More simplication: why clines may be conceptual artifacts
I have been (carefully) failing to separate two issues here. One is that of
directionality, and the other the existence of clines in the classical Hopper and
Traugott sense. It would seem at rst that theres really no distinction: if theres
a known pathway that goes {lexical word > grammatical word > clitic > ax},
isnt this pathway a cline in the sense that of being a graded series of categories
that moves in a single direction? Actually the answer is no, or at least not
necessarily yes.
Consider for instance a familiar type of cline in another linguistic module:
a lenition pathway. Everyone would agree that the following are very typical
pathways, which show all the properties of clines (step-by-step movement, at
least tendential irreversibility, etc.):
(19) p > pf > ph > f > h >
(20) b > v > w > u >
Formally these look exactly like:
(21) lexical word > grammatical word > clitic > ax >
The cline interpretation of these examples is progressive weakening (loss of
oral occlusion or lexical substance and positional freedom) via a series of
prespecied steps, which map onto the clines positions or cluster-points.
But there is an alternative and more parsimonious interpretation. Processes
apparently involving progressive loss of articulatory strength or lexicality are
common (the pathways are inductively derived), and according to our chosen
primitives and formalisation, quantal rather than continuous (guaranteed by our
selection of named cluster-points). Squishes are presumably less common than
objects that sit on the named points, even if some phenomena may be ambiguous
(e.g. /t/ going to a voiceless alveolar tap, or an item varying between inection
and clitic while the clitic is becoming an inection via lexical diusion). But if
we pursue the basic quantal notion, we have the possibility of a dierent kind
of interpretation. I suggest something more or less along the following lines:
i. Let any phonological segment or lexical (or other) morph be a set of
matrices of hierarchically ranked, unary features. These are the quanta
dening categorial information, and the units of change.
ii. Processes involving loss of articulatory strength or lexicality, are common-
place, and quantal. That is, they lop o one quantum on a given scale.
iii. Such processes, for inertial or whatever other reasons, have a habit of
returning over time, either with a dened period or not; and the same item
may recycle through the same process (an instruction to lose one informa-
tion-quantum, say) again and again.
Therefore, when such a change arises, and an item is susceptible, it will undergo
the process. But note that its being aected is independent of its prior state. A
stop will become a fricative, a clitic will become an ax simply because it is
what it is at the time the (generalized) change applies. The change of one
category into a weaker one is ontologically and processually independent of its
prior state, what changes happen to have come before, or where the item began
n changes ago. That is, under this construal the stages in a cline are causally
independent, like the tosses of a coin. Information-loss processes have no
memory. We could argue then that clines or pathways have no independent
existence or explanatory value; they are post-facto reications, pure epiphenome-
na of our notations.
224 ROGER LASS
So in principle all we need for the examples discussed is one kind of
process, and no complications like predened pathways with content. This
process may be content-free and memory free, and directions in such a framework
are artifacts of presentation, not properties of the objects or the processes that
change them. Perhaps a graphic illustration can sum this up more clearly:
(22)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

# #
Let = any periodic change, , , , arbitrary quanta of information: #
There is a lot of work to do, of course, in rening a proposal like this (if indeed
its worth proceeding). In particular, the kinds of elements that make up the
quantal sets have to be dened. In this introductory polemic I will shirk that
responsibility; but it does not seem impossible, and does seem worth trying.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Claire Cowie, Ana Deumert, Olga Fischer, Don Ringe, and Elizabeth Traugott for helpful
comments on earlier drafts; and to discussants at oral presentations in Oxford and Edinburgh,
especially Anna Morpurgo Davies, JC Smith, Jim Hurford and John Anderson. The present paper is
certainly better than earlier drafts because of these interventions; Ive surely ignored some important
ones, and of course made all my own errors.
Notes
1. Whether there is a theory of GR is debatable, or at least debated. For a negative conclusion
see Newmeyer (1998: ch. 5). Newmeyers deconstruction of GR was brought to my attention
after this paper was written, thanks to Jim Hurford. Interestingly Newmeyer and I largely agree,
and come to similar conclusions on the basis of quite dierent arguments. This is either a
supporting consilience of inductions (Whewell 1837), or a folie deux.
2. E.g. it is impossible, from the literature, to determine the status of well-known changes like the
upgrading of the Old English masculine/neuter a -stem genitive singular ax -(e)s, which
derives from an Indo-European ax, into a clitic in modern English: note the early type [the
king]s nose of England (where the -s is only an ax on an N) vs. the later group-genitive
[the king of England]s nose, where it is a clitic to a phrase. It can even be a clitic in many
dialects to a phrase with one or more embedded sentences: [the man who I used to know]s
daughter. It is at least arguable that the short-lived English his-genitive, e.g. John his book,
shows upgrading of an ax (or at that stage probably a clitic) to a free word, which can serve
as member of a paradigm: thus after John his book we get the types Mary her book, John and
Mary their book (see Lass 1999: 3.8.1).
3. I was reminded of this childhood treasure by Steven Pinkers quotation of it in a slightly
dierent context (1995: 66). I use a dierent transliteration, but the proverb is the same.
4. Thanks to Minna Andersen for Finnish data and detailed and enlightening discussion.
5. Inf1 =rst innitive, the traditional name for this form. There are other innitives that are
more like what non-Finnish traditions would call participles.
6. Note that it would be perverse to make a universal claim that all mammals with long canines,
claws, short guts and cutting cheek-teeth are carnivores, and then have to deal with the
problem of how to treat the herbivorous counterexample of the panda. The question of how
to interpret apparent counterexamples can sometimes be a function of an ill-considered (if
beloved) hypothesis, formulated in such a way that it ignores potential counterexamples ab
initio.
7. Cf. Don Ringes devastating 1995 paper, where he shows that the standard cognate-sets and
correspondences supposedly supporting the existence of Nostratic are no better than what
would be expected by chance, and that their prole can be shown to be mathematically so
dierent from that of real families like Indo-European that we have to reject Nostratic as a
pure invention.
8. This is not to say that the UD tradition hasnt produced a lot of exquisite exegesis, populated
the universe of discourse with new ideas of great fruitfulness, increased our understanding of
particular changes or types of change, etc. But in the present connection this is not the main
issue.
9. This is just an intuition: it certainly seems to be the case in some markedness examples that
have been subject to statistical analysis (see Lass 1975).
10. It should be clear that my target here is the strongest possible Strong UD. I dont know what
percentage of writers on GR actually hold this position, but it has been enunciated in print, as
well as by personal communication from various people (notably Martin Haspelmath who I
thank for taking such a strong position a couple of years ago). But I think its good strategy to
attack the strongest version of any position, since the weaker ones have already yielded
something.
11. That is, uniformitarian theories must have sucient latitude to allow for lawful emergence.
The likelihood of a resident of New York speaking Yiddish or having a PC in 1828 is not the
same as now; but there are legal phenomena like migration and technological development
that allow for this. For detailed discussion see Lass (1997: ch. 1).
12. The scare-quotes indicate my doubt that any such things existed, or at least are recoverable by
normal techniques; but lets assume them or something of the sort anyway; since it makes no
dierence.
13. This appears to be the consensus in the handbooks, both old and new (e.g. Meillet 1964; Krahe
1962; Szemernyi 1989; Beekes 1990). The issue does not even appear interesting enough to
discuss.
226 ROGER LASS
14. For the following material, see for example Collinder (1960) on Uralic in general, and Laanest
(1982) on Balto-Finnic.
15. This is not the case for many more easterly Uralic languages belonging to other subgroups, and
some innovative Balto-Finnic ones like Estonian and Vepsian.
16. Notations like *- nA, etc. indicate a low vowel subject in later dialects to vowel harmony. So
the locative survives as the Finnish essive, with two allomorphs: kala sh, kala-na, hiiri
mouse, hiiri-n, where a, =[!, ].
17. The common phenomenon that Meillet (1912) called renouvellement, the recreation of lost
structures out of others, is not to the point here. Even if you lose something and make a new
one in some other way, the old one is still gone, and the movement toward its loss is direction-
al. De novo creation is not reversal of directionality.
References
Anderson, N. 1879. Studien zur Vergleichung der Indogermanischen und Finnisch-
Ugrischen Sprachen. Leipzig: K. F. Koehler.
Beekes, R. S. P. 1990. Vergelijkende taalwetenschap. Tussen Sanskrit en Nederlands.
Utrecht: Het Spectrum BV.
Campbell, L. 1991. Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implica-
tions. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, E. Traugott and B. Heine (eds),
Collinder, B. 1960. Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages. Stockholm: Almqvist
& Wiksell.
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.
University Press.
Krahe, H. 1962. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Laanest, A. 1982. Einfhrung in die ostseennischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske
Verlag.
Lass, R. 1975. How intrinsic is content? Markedness, sound change, and family
universals. In Essays on the Sound Pattern of English, D. Goyvaerts and G. K.
Pullum (eds), 475504. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.
Lass, R. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lass, R. 1999. Phonology and morphology. In The Cambridge History of the English
Language, III, 14761776, R. Lass (ed.), 56186. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lyell, C. 183033. Principles of Geology; Being an Attempt to Explain the Former
Changes to the Earths Surface by Reference to Causes Now in Operation. 3 vols.
London: John Murray.
Meillet, A. 1912. Lvolution des formes grammaticales. In Linguistique historique et
linguistique gnrale, 131148. Paris: Champion.
Meillet, A. 1964. Introduction ltude comparative des langues indo-europennes.
Reprint. University Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Newmeyer, F. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Pinker, S. 1995. The Language Instinct. New York: Harper Collins.
Ringe, D. 1995. Nostratic and the factor of chance. Diachronica XII:1.5574.
Sweet, H. 1900. The History of Languages. London: J. M. Dent.
Szemernyi, O. 1989. Einfhrung in die Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Thomason, S. G. 1993. Coping with partial information in historical linguistics. In
Historical Linguistics 1989. Papers from the 9th International Conference on
Historical Linguistics, H. Aertsen and R. J. Jeers (eds), 485496. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. 1994. The psychological foundations of culture. In The
Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, J. H. Barkow,
L. Cosmides and J. Tooby (eds), 19136. New York: Oxford University Press.
Whewell, W. 1837. History of the Inductive Sciences from the Earliest to the Present Time.
3 vols. London: John W. Parker.
Solice and witodlice
Discourse markers in Old English
Ursula Lenker
University of Munich
1. Introduction
Those who study grammaticalization processes from a semantic-pragmatic
perspective widely agree that the early stages of grammaticalization are charac-
terised not only by semantic weakening but, more importantly, by pragmatic
strengthening and increased subjectication (Hopper and Traugott 1993: 6393;
Traugott 1995; Brinton 1996). In an application of this approach Traugott
(1995b) has recently examined the role of the development of discourse markers
in a theory of grammaticalization. She argues on the basis of an analysis of
the development of Modern English indeed, in fact and besides that the cline
clause-internal adverbial > sentence adverbial > discourse particle should be
added to the inventory of clines that are the subject of grammaticalization.
In this paper I want to show that the Old English adverbs solice and
witodlice can serve as examples for such a cline. In Old English we nd these
adverbs used in several coexisting functions: from original manner adverbs and
sentential adverbs (disjuncts) they develop to boundary markers, i.e. discourse
particles marking thematic discontinuity. Such a layering of functions is a
characteristic of all language change and in particular a property of the early
stages of grammaticalization processes (Hopper and Traugott 1993: 124126).
1
2. Solice and witodlice: The traditional approach
Adverbs such as solice and witodlice are notoriously dicult for linguists:
230 URSULA LENKER
(1) The lexicographers have much work to do with eornostlice, solice,
witodlice, and the like. When I consider the great variety of Latin
words they translate (see BT(S), s.vv.) and when I read lfric De
Coniunctione (), I do not envy them (Mitchell 1985: 3168).
The validity of Mitchells statement can be illustrated by the entry for eornostlice
in the most recent of the dictionaries of Old English, the Dictionary of Old
English (DOE; Cameron et al. 1987):
2
(2) eornostlice (ca. 325 occ.)
A.1 strictly, solemnly
A.2 steadfastly, stalwartly, resolutely
B. used as an introductory or conjunctive adverb, especially
to render a variety of Latin conjunctions; when used in
this way, the word is usually placed initially in the sen-
tence or clause, but is sometimes postponed (often, but not
always, reecting the position of the Lat. conjunction
translated)
B.1 therefore, then, so, accordingly (without any denite
expression of consequence or result)
B.1a rendering ergo therefore, then, so, accordingly
B.1a.i rendering ergo, used in interrogative constructions
B.1b rendering igitur then, therefore, accordingly, consequently
B.1c rendering itaque and thus, accordingly, therefore
B.2 indeed, in fact, truly; for in fact
B.2a rendering quippe indeed, for, for in fact
B.2b rendering enim since in fact, inasmuch as, for, because
B.2c rendering etenim and indeed, in fact, for
B.2d rendering autem but, yet, but indeed
B.2e glossing dumtaxat to this extent; at least, at any rate
Eornostlices propositional meaning as a manner adverb strictly, solemnly (cf.
its etymology in an earnest way) obviously presents little problem (cf. A).
Much more important for the present issue are the meanings collected under B:
after a somewhat general introduction, the lexicographer seeks help in the Latin
words which eornostlice commonly renders, and their Modern English transla-
tions. The Latin and Modern English lexemes used are, however, so polysemous
and multifunctional that eornostlice likewise appears to be strangely polysemous
and multifunctional.
SOLICE AND WITODLICE 231
This lexicographical procedure is not unique to the DOE but is applied in
most other dictionaries as well; as examples cf. the entries for solice and
witodlice in one of the standard dictionaries of Old English, Bosworth-Tollers
Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (BT; 188298):
3
(3) solice: I. as adv. Truly, really, certainly, verily
II. as conj. Now, then, for; representing Latin autem,
ecce, enim, ergo, nam, vero
witodlice: adv. I. Certainly
II. with a somewhat indenite sense, translating
many Latin words, indeed, surely, truly
The lexicographers of the DOE are actually the less to be envied in the cases
of solice and witodlice when the 325 occurrences of eornostlice are set against
1633 of witodlice and 4801 of solice.
4
The Latin words these particles translate
are even more numerous, polysemous and also more varied in their semantic-
syntactic properties. As an example, cf. the evidence from the Gospels according
to Matthew and John in the West-Saxon Gospels (=WSG):
5
(4) Matthew: eornostlice autem (1 occ.), ergo
solice autem, ecce, enim, ergo (1 occ.), nam,
vero
witodlice autem, ecce, enim, ergo, etiam, igitur,
itaque, nam, quidem, siquidem, utique,
vero, et factum est
John: eornostlice
solice autem, enim, ergo, vero
witodlice autem, enim, ergo, igitur, itaque,
quidem, utique
More importantly, the Modern English translations given for the Latin adverbs in
the Old English dictionaries are contestable themselves as they merely reect the
general sense or adverbial categories to which the words are commonly allocat-
ed: causal for enim and nam, consecutive for ergo and adversative for
autem, at and vero.
6
That this is a far too simplistic treatment of these particles
can be illustrated by the entry for autem in the Mittellateinisches Wrterbuch,
which shows that the lexicographers of Latin are confronted with exactly the
same problems and that they react to them in a similar way, namely by referring
to the Greek lemmata translated or to the supposed Latin synonyms:
7
232 URSULA LENKER
(5) I) c. sensu continuationis, i.q. [idem quod] de, tunc nun, aber,
dann
II) c. sensu contrarietatis vel diversitatis, i.q. at, vero, sed
jedoch, dagegen, aber
III) c. sensu anaphorae, i.q. ergo also
IV) c. sensu causae, i.q. enim nmlich
V) c. sensu adiunctionis, i.q. etiam auch
VI) c. sensu concessionis attamen, nihilominus dennoch,
trotzdem; quidem zwar
The evidence from the Latin and Old English dictionaries shows that a full entry
for solice or witodlice is likely to go on for pages. It would provide a great
many Modern English translations, but it would still or therefore not be
very helpful.
3. The discourse-level approach
This paper argues that solice and witodlice should be investigated on a dierent
level of language analysis since their purely semantic analysis is not only
dicult but in some cases even misleading.
8
Solice and witodlice will be
shown to function as text-structuring discourse markers in Old English narrative
discourse, where they are employed as highlighting devices and, more important-
ly, markers of episode boundaries or shifts in the narrative.
This will be demonstrated by an account of the discourse functions of their
Latin counterparts, in particular autem, and by an analysis of dierent Old
English texts from the end of the tenth and the beginning of the eleventh
century.
9
The restriction to prose texts is not coincidental, but corresponds to the
textual distribution and thus one of the important properties of solice and
witodlice. Of the about 4800 occurrences of solice only 25 are found in poetry
(most of them manner adverbs in direct speech); witodlice is only attested once
in poetry. This evidence suggests that the discourse functions of solice and
witodlice are restricted to prose texts as well.
4. Morpho-syntactic analysis
Both solice and witodlice are adverbs derived from adjectives by means of the
adverbial sux -e. The bases solic and witodlic are themselves derivations
from so true; (truth) and witod certain; appointed, ordained,
10
so that both
adverbs have a basic semantic meaning verily, truly, assuredly, knowingly.
Modifying verbs, they can e.g. be employed as manner adjuncts (Quirk et al.
1985: 8.79):
11
(6) Nacode he scrydde, and swa ic solice secge,
12
ealle nyd-behfnysse
he ws dlende am e s behofodon (Eustace 9)
The naked he clothed; and, as I truly tell, he distributed to every
necessity of them that had need thereof
(transl. Skeat 1900: 191)
13
More frequently they function as emphasizers, expressing the semantic role of
modality since they have a reinforcing eect on the truth value of the clause or
part of the clause to which they apply (Quirk et al. 1985: 8.99):
(7) Ic eom solice romanisc. and ic on hftnyd hider geld ws
(Eustace 344)
I am truly a Roman, and I was brought hither in captivity
(8) Apolloni, ic oncnawe solice t u eart on eallum ingum wel
gelred (Apollonius 16,24)
Apollonius, I know truly that you are well taught in all things
(transl. Swanton 1975: 166; cf. Latin Apolloni, intelligo te in
omnibus esse locupletem)
In these cases solice serves as a truth-intensier and fulls a highly subjective
and speaker-oriented function which adds a strong illocutionary force to the
speech acts; cf. in particular performative speech acts such as Apollonius promise
(9) Ic sille eow solice hundteontig usenda mittan hwtes to am wure
e ic hit gebohte on minum lande (Apollonius 10,7)
Truly, I will supply you with a hundred thousand measures of
wheat for the price I bought it in my country
(transl. Swanton 1975: 163; cf. the Latin Dabo itaque vobis C milia
frumenti modios eo precio quo in patria mea mercatus sum)
or the (10) consistent translation of Latin Amen, (amen) dico vobis in the West
Saxon Gospels by Solice ic eow secge (Matthew 6,16, 10,15, 11,11 etc.; Mark
3,28, 8,12 etc.; Luke 4,24, 12,37, 13,16 etc.; John 8,51, 12,24, 13,16). These
formulaic expressions are used when Jesus reinterprets the Old Testament by
virtue of his authority as the Son of God.
234 URSULA LENKER
In the functions described so far manner adjunct and emphasizer
solice is primarily found in direct speech with a rst person (singular) subject,
14
which means that in these cases the subject of the sentence is identical with the
speaker. This constraint is a consequence of the propositional meaning of the
lexeme, in particular the denotative and connotative features of truth which
demand a human agent with high trustworthiness, most likely the speaker himself.
Yet, in the majority of their occurrences the scope of the adverbs solice
and witodlice is not restricted to the phrase level, but extends to the whole
sentence.
15
Solice and witodlice function as disjuncts, expressing either the
comment that what is being said is true (content disjuncts; Quirk et al.
1985: 8.127) or conveying the speakers assertion that his words are the unvar-
nished truth (style disjuncts; Quirk et al. 1985: 8.124).
16
So in examples (11)
and (12), solice is used instead of the full phrases so is t ic secge or
solice ic eow secge (cf. examples 6 and 10).
17
This change in perspective involves increased syntactic freedom and
scope.
18
As sentence adverbials solice and witodlice are not part of the core
syntactic structure and are thus optional from a syntactic point of view. More
importantly, there is no longer any constraint on the subject of the sentence,
which may even be inanimate (cf. example 18). When used as a style disjunct,
solice introduces the voice of the speaker in addition to the proposition of
the sentence. It functions as a speaker comment which conveys the speakers
assertion that his words (the proposition of the sentence) are true, e.g. the
assertion that Eustace (subject) is a righteous man in (11) and (12):
(11) Ws he solice
19
on rihtwisnysse weorcum swie gefrtwod
(Eustace 4)
Truly he was greatly adorned with works of righteousness
(12) Ws he witodlice swie ele on rihtwisnysse and strang on gefeohte
(Eustace 14)
He was indeed very noble in righteousness, and strong in ght
This development from manner adverb to style disjunct corresponds to the
Modern English situation where a manner adverb that may co-occur with
the verb tell (when tell is being used performatively) can also function as a style
disjunct (Schreiber 1972: 323).
20
5. Discourse particles in Latin
The usefulness of a discourse-level approach in historical linguistics has recently
been demonstrated by Brintons (1996) account of pragmatic markers in the
history of English and Kroons (1995) investigation of the discourse functions of
a number of Latin coordinating conjunctions, in particular those which above
have been shown to be the Latin counterparts of solice and witodlice. Kroon
nds that adverbs and conjunctions which in the traditional approach are
regarded as carrying a causal or consecutive meaning (nam, enim, igitur and
ergo) and those with a supposedly adversative sense (autem, vero and at) actually
work on very dierent levels of discourse, which she calls the representational,
presentational and interactional level.
21
While vero, ergo and at function on the
interactional level of communicative acts and moves, autem, nam and igitur are
connectives on the level of textual organization (Kroon 1995: 371375).
Autem, the most common Latin counterpart of solice and witodlice should,
according to this analysis (Kroon 1995: 226280), no longer be classied as an
adversative conjunction but as a boundary marker functioning on the textual level:
(13) Autem is a presentational particle which marks the discrete status of
a piece of information with regard to its verbal or non-verbal
context. Depending on whether the particle is applied locally (on the
level of the sentence) or more globally (on the level of the text) it
can be characterized as a highlighting or focusing device, or as
a marker of the organization of the text (viz. of thematic discontinu-
ity) (Kroon 1995: 226).
6. Visual clues: Old English initials in MS Cambridge, University
Library, Ii. 2. 11
My investigation of the discourse functions of solice and witodlice was,
however, not sparked o by textual but rather by visual clues. In a main witness
for the Gospel lectionary in Anglo-Saxon England (cf. Lenker 1997), a mid-
eleventh century manuscript of the West Saxon Gospels (Cambridge, University
Library, Ii. 2. 11), the Old English Gospel text is subdivided into about 200
sections by rubrics. These Old English and Latin rubrics indicate on which day
of the liturgical year the following text is commonly read during the performance
of the mass. While the rst words of the Latin Gospel lection are cited in the rubric,
its beginning in the Old English text is highlighted by an initial; cf. the rubric for
the lection beginning with Matthew 4,12 (for the Friday after Epiphany):
236 URSULA LENKER
(14) se deofol hine and englas genealhton and him enodon (Mt 4,11)
is sceal on frigedg ofer twelfta dg.
Cum audisset Iesus quod iohannes traditus esset.
Solice a se hlend gehirde t iohannes belwed ws
(Mt 4,12)
[left] the devil him and angels came towards him and served him.
/ This shall (be read) on Friday after Epiphany. / When Jesus heard
that John had been betrayed. /Truly, when the saviour heard that
John was betrayed
Discourse-analytically, it is important that lections have to be complete episodes
with a coherent structure. At their beginnings the participants, time, location etc.
have to be mentioned as otherwise the congregation would not be able to
understand the lection. These characteristics of the beginning of Gospel lections
are strikingly similar to the characteristics of episode boundaries, which are
indicated by a change in time, location, participants, the action sequence etc.
22
In
the texts, these changes are commonly denoted by a number of concrete linguistic
clues, e.g. syntactic markers such as frame-shifting spatial and temporal adverbials,
the use of full noun phrases where anaphoric pronouns are expected, certain conjunc-
tions or explicit metacomments and discourse particles (Brinton 1996: 44).
23
Examples (15) to (18) show the text division of the rst chapter of the
Gospel according to Luke (Birth and childhood of John the Baptist and Jesus):
(15) Lk 1,26 Solice on am syxtan mone ws asend gabriel se engel
fram drihtne on galilea ceastre (Lk 1,2738)
Truly, in the sixth month was sent Gabriel the angel by the Lord to
a Galilean town
(16) Lk 1,39 Solice on amdagumaras maria and ferde on muntland mid
ofste. on iudeisce ceastre. (Lk 1,4055)
Truly, in these days Mary got ready and went to the hill-country
with haste to a Judaean town
(17) Lk 1,56 Solice maria wunude mid hyre swylce ry monas. and
gewende a to hyre huse. Lk 1,57 a ws gefylled elizabethe
cenningtid. and heo sunu cende (Lk 1,5880)
Truly, Mary lived with her such three months and went then (back)
to her house. Then came the time for Elizabeth to give birth and she
gave birth to a son
(18) Lk 2,1 Solice on am dagum ws geworden gebod fram am casere
augusto. t eall ymbehwyrft wre tomearcod (Lk 2,2)
Truly, in these days an order was given by the Emperor Augustus
that all the world should be described
In each of the lection-initial sentences the participants, the location and the time
of the action are explicitly mentioned, while the beginning of the lection itself is
denoted by sentence-initial solice.
24
It is obvious that the sentence adverbial solice is semantically bleached in
these cases, as its main function is no longer to convey the speakers assertion
or comment that what is being said is true. Augustus order (18) to have a
census taken is not a matter of the speakers subjective belief, but a historical
fact. Solice is no longer a style disjunct which replaces a full phrase such as
solice ic eow secge. Its function here is to indicate the beginning of a new
lection. Solice thus works on the (meta)textual level, as a boundary marker with
demarcating force. This use as a discourse marker obviously develops from its
function as a style disjunct: by explicitly stating that what is being said is true,
the speaker manages to catch the listeners or readers attention at the beginning
of a new episode.
This use of solice as a boundary marker
25
is not unique to the rst
chapters of Luke, as can be shown by an inventory of the lection-initial words
which are highlighted as initials:
26
(19) a solice witodlice eornostlice and (others)
Mt
Mk
Lk
John
27
13
17
19
13
02
12
02
2
1
5
1
7
5
2
1
21
03
12
38
66 29 8 2 150 (74)
With a total of 37 instances solice and witodlice are the second most common
of the boundary markers employed and are only outnumbered by the particle a
whose function as a discourse marker is undisputed (cf. e.g. Enkvist and Wrvik
1987; Kim 1992). For the WSG, Kims thorough discourse-level analysis (1992)
provides convincing evidence that a-clauses in this text signal some kind of
discourse discontinuity, indicating a shift of topic, ground, time-line, scene,
listener or content.
27
The fact that more than half of the lections begin with a,
solice, witodlice or in two instances eornostlice thus suggests that not
238 URSULA LENKER
only a, but also solice and witodlice should be regarded as explicit markers of
discourse discontinuity.
28
7. Solice and witodlice in Old English narratives
In a next step the analysis will now concentrate on the discourse functions of
solice and witodlice in selected passages from texts which are comparatively
independent of their Latin exemplars, the Old English translation of the Greek-
Latin romance Apollonius of Tyre (ed. Goolden 1958) and the Life of Saint
Eustace by lfric (ed. Skeat 1900: 190218).
The Old English Apollonius is a narrative text whose plot of various,
sometimes unrelated adventures is structured by means of short chapters. A
number of chapter beginnings (Chapters 3, 4, 6, 16, 17, 49, 50 and 51) are
denoted by the boundary marker solice which only rarely has a Latin adverb as
its counterpart in the exemplar (most probably
29
vero in 6,1, 16,1 and 51,1).
Solice here signals an interruption of a thematic chain by a change in time,
aspect, participants or action sequence. At the beginning of Chapter 3 Antioch
continues
30
to abuse his daughter (3,1 On isum ingum solice urhwunode
) and then asks her admirers a riddle a denite turn in the sequence of
events which brings about the misfortune of the young men who fail to solve the
riddle: their heads are set up over the town gate.
(20) 3,1 On isum ingum solice urhwunode se arleasesta cyngc
Antiochus he asette a rdels us cweende: . And a
heafda ealle wurdon gesette on ufeweardan am geate.
3,1 In fact the infamous king Antiochus persisted in this state of
aairs he set them a riddle, saying: . And their heads
were all set up over the gate (transl. Swanton 1975: 159)
Antioch persists in this cruelty (4,1 Mid i solice urhwunode) until a new
protagonist, Apollonius, enters the scene. In his greeting Apollonius maintains his
right to marry the kings daughter because ic eom solice of cynelicum cynne
cumen (4,8), employing in his speech alliteration and an emphasizer, the truth-
intensier solice. As a next break in the thematic chain, indicated to the reader
by a solice (4,19), Apollonius receives the riddle, the precondition for the next
turn of events, his successful solving of the riddle:
(21) 4,1 Mid i solice Antiochus se wlreowa cyningc on ysse
wlreownesse urhwunode, a ws Apollonius gehaten sumiung man
se ws swie welig 4,6 Eode a into am cyninge and cw: Wes
gesund, cyningc Ic eom solice of cynelicum cynne cumen and ic
bidde inre dohtor me to gemccan 4,19 Apollonius a solice
onfangenum rdelse hine bewnde hwon fram am cyninge, and mid
y e he smeade ymbe t ingehyd, he hit gewan mid wisdome and
mid Godes fultume he t so ardde.
4,1 While the cruel king Antiochus in fact persisted in this cruelty,
there was a certain young man called Apollonius who was very
wealthy . 4,8 He went to the king and said: All hail, King I
come in fact from a regal family, and I ask for your daughter as my
wife 4,15 Then, truly, having received the riddle, Apollonius
turned himself a little away from the king, and when he had consid-
ered the sense he solved it with wisdom, and with Gods help he
guessed the truth (transl. Swanton 1975: 15960)
The transition from Chapter 50 to 51 nally demonstrates that (a) solice can
also, though much less frequently, mark the termination of an episode, the end
of a sequence of actions involving certain participants. With a solice in 51,1
Apollonius is reintroduced as the protagonist.
(22) 50,2 For a solice anon to Tharsummid his wife and mid his dohtor
50,29 Heo rhte a solice hire handa him to and het hine gesund
faran, and Philothemian, are forscildgodandohtor, Thasia namto hyre.
50,2 Then afterwards he went to Tharsus with his wife and his
daughter. 50,29 Then indeed, she extended her hand to him and
bade him go in safety; and Thasia took to herself Philothemia, the
daughter of the guilty woman.
(23) 51,1 Apollonius a solice forgeaf amfolce micele gifa to blisse, and
heora weallas wurdon geedstaelode. He wunode a ar six monas
51,1 Apollonius then, indeed, gave the people great gifts to rejoice
them; and their walls were restored. Then he stayed there six months
(transl. Swanton 1975: 172)
The information given in the solice-clauses is not the most salient for these
episodes. The clauses do commonly not contain the core events of the episode,
but provide the background information for the events to follow. With respect to
grounding, Brinton (1996: 116143) has lucidly analyzed this for the functions of
the dierent parts of the Old English gelamp-construction (a hit gelamp t;
a hit gewear t),
31
a much more obvious episode boundary marker in Old
240 URSULA LENKER
English, which grounds episodes in the narrative and guides the reader
through the episodic structure of the text (143). She suggests that events which
are temporally or causally prior to the core events of the episode are back-
grounded in this fashion if they constitute the initiating or instigating event of the
episode (133). While the main clause serves as a metacomment upon the
narrative structure, the complement clause establishes the necessary conditions
for the episode to occur. Solice is functionally synonymous
32
with the main clause
of the gelamp-construction and thus serves as a metacomment upon the narrative.
lfrics Life of Saint Eustace shows that the demarcating force of
witodlice and solice is also found in texts which were not translated but
composed in Old English. The rst episode after the introduction, which is
marked by means of a gelamp-construction (Hit gelamp sume dge), relates
the events which lead to Placidas conversion (24). Placidas, who goes out
hunting hart, departs from his companions and has a vision of a hart between
whose horns the likeness of Christs holy rood glitters. In this core section of not
only the episode but the whole homily, witodlice is used three times to guide the
reader by explicitly indicating the most important events (cf. Skeats more and
more emphatic translations verily, indeed and nally behold):
(24) Hit gelamp sume dge t he ferde ut on hunta mid eallum his
werode and his wuldre. a hi ealle ymb one hunta abysgode
wron a teowode him-sylfum an ormte heort a t nixtan
wurdon hi ealle geteorode and he ana unwerig him fter fyligde.
Witodlice urh godes fore-stihtunge ne hors ne he sylf gewergod ws
and feor fram his geferum gewat. Se heort a witodlice astah on
anne heahne clud and r gestod Him a god geswutelode t he
him swilcne dom ne gedrede ne his mgnes micelnesse ne wundrode.
Witodlice betwux s heortes hornumglitenode gelicnys re halgan
cristes rode breohtre onne sunnan leoma (2443)
It happened one day that he went out hunting with all his company
and array When they were all busied about the hunting, then
there appeared to himself an immense hart, then at last they were
all tired and he alone, unweary, followed after it Verily through
Gods predestination neither his horse nor himself was wearied
and he departed far from his companions. Then indeed the hart
mounted up on a high rock and there stood. Then God revealed
to him that he should not fear such power, nor wonder at the
greatness of his might. Behold, between the harts horns glittered
the likeness of Christs holy rood, brighter than the suns beam
Witodlices use as a highlighting device here is functionally similar to its
employment as an episode boundary marker, which is also a highlighting device
on the more global level of textual organization (cf. Kroons description of the
functions of autem in [13]).
For (a) solice, the ndings agree even more closely with those for the
other texts.
33
In example (25), the solice-clause indicates a change in the action
sequence and an orientation toward a new central event when, after a lengthy dia-
logue, Eustace and his wife leave their home to nd a priest who will baptize them.
(25) a cw Placidas to hire: t ylce me sde se e ic geseah. a
solice to middre nihte hi ferdon swa heora menn nyston to cristenra
manna sacerda and halsodon hine t he hi gefullode (8891)
Then said Placidas to her: He whom I saw said the same to me.
Then verily at midnight they went, so that their servants should not
know it, to the Christian mens priest and entreated him to
baptize them (transl. Skeat 1900: 197)
A change in time, location, participants and action sequence is denoted by a
solice in (26). After the baptism and the last words of the priest, Placidas, who
is now called Eustace, gathers a few companions in order to return to the place
of his vision.
(26) and gemuna me iohannis ic bidde eow. a solice eft on rne
mergen genameustachius feawa geferan. and ferde to re stowe r
he r a ge-syhe geseah (1035)
and remember me, John, I pray you. Then verily again in the
early morning Eustace took a few companions and went to the place
where he had before seen the vision (transl. Skeat 1900: 197)
In this homily, solices demarcating force is, however, restricted to marking
sub-episodes. Major shifts in the narrative are indicated by
gelamp-constructions, such as Hit gelamp sume dge (24) or fter issum ws
geworden (27).
34
(27) fter issum ws ge-worden micel hergung on am lande e
eustachius r on ws (222) a ferdon solice twegen cempan
a wron genemde antiochus and achaius . (230)
After this there was made a great invasion of the country wherein
Eustachius had been rst Then went two soldiers who were
named Antiochus and Achaius (transl. Skeat 1900: 205)
242 URSULA LENKER
8. The two versions of Wrferths translation of Gregorys Dialogues
The pragmatic functions of solice and witodlice can be conrmed by a compari-
son of chapter-initial examples taken from a text which has come down to us in
two Old English versions. Gregory the Greats Dialogues on the Lives and
Miracles of the Italian Fathers (ed. Hecht 1900) is an extremely clearly structured
text which in short episodes (capitula) relates miracles of holy men. It was rst
translated by Bishop Wrferth of Worcester in 890 and was revised anonymous-
ly about a century later. The modications found in chapter-initial sentences
from the First Book which are not caused by the Latin text
35
indicate substitution
possibilities and can therefore serve as a kind of historical test-frame. Cf. the
following selection of examples:
Wrferth of Worcester (890) anonymous reviser (9501050)
(28)
a.
Solice sume dge hit gelamp, t
an nunne of am ylcan mynstre
eode a geseah heo nne leahtric
(1900: 30)
b.
Solice sumon dge hit gelamp, t
an nunne of am ilcan mynstre eode
a geseah heo nne leahtric and
Truly, one day it happened, that a nun of the same monastery went; then
she saw a lettuce
(29)
a.
a t nextan becom isses ylcan weres
hlisa to cynysse Romana bisceope
(1900: 34)
b.
Witodlice a t necstan se hlisa yses
ylcan weres bodunge becom to
cynysse Romanebyri.
Then at next the fame of the same man became known to the Roman bishop
(30)
a.
Eac hit gelamp on sume tid, t him
comon twegen men to and a sealde
he heom (1900: 66)
b.
Solice on orum timan him comon to
twegen men a sealde he him
It also happened some time, that two men came to him and then he gave
them
(31)
a.
Eac eos ylce his modur gewunode,
t heo hfde hire henna and fedde
c.
a sume dge stod Bonefacius se cniht
in am ilcan ingange; a com se fox
(1900: 69)
b.
Witodlice eos ilce his modor
gewunode to fedenne henna
d.
solice sume dge, a a se cniht
Bonefatius stod on am ylcan ingange,
a com se fox
Also, the mother of the same (one) had hens and fed them then one day
when the boy Boniface was standing in the same entrance, the fox came
Already the original translator employs a number of the particles and phrases
which have above been shown to serve as episode boundary markers: the text is
structured by the use of a (29a, 31c), solice (28a), and gelamp-constructions
(28a, 30a), either alone or in combination. The most striking result of the
comparison of the two versions is, however, that the reviser explicitly marks the
beginning of the chapter by witodlice (31b) or uses sentence-initial solice and
witodlice (29b, 30b, 31d) to replace a or a gelamp-construction. This is a clear
indication that solice and witodlice are functionally equal to discourse markers
with a more obvious demarcating force, such as the gelamp-construction, and
that they indeed functioned as episode boundary markers for a native speaker
of Old English.
9. Conclusions
A comparison of the morpho-syntactic and functional characteristics of solice
and witodlice with the properties of other Old and Middle English discourse
particles as established by Brinton (1996: 265267) shows that these Old English
words t well into the pattern.
36
They are high-frequency words which often
occur in sentence-initial position. As sentence adverbials, they exist outside the
core syntactic structure and are syntactically detachable from the sentence. They
show an apparent lack of semantic content and are therefore able to work at both
local and global levels of discourse. More importantly, the discourse-level
analysis of their functions shows them to belong to the linguistic devices which
denote the textual structure of Old English narratives: from original manner
adjuncts, truth-intensifying emphasizers and sentence adverbs (style disjuncts)
solice and witodlice develop into semantically bleached
37
and pragmatically
enriched indicators of thematic discontinuity and are consequently employed as
244 URSULA LENKER
episode boundary markers. They thus follow exactly the stages of grammatical-
ization Traugott proposes for the adverbial cline manner adverb > sentence
adverbial > discourse marker (Traugott 1995b).
38
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Alfred Bammesberger, Walter Hofstetter, Lucia Kornexl, Justin Larsen, Andreas
Mahler and the anonymous commentators for their most helpful comments on earlier versions of this
paper.
Notes
1. For the later development of solice see Lenker (1999); witodlice is not attested after the Old
English period.
2. The Dictionary of Old English has, to this point, only been issued to the letter E, so that the
entries for solice and witodlice are not yet available.
3. See also the entry for sothli in the Middle English Dictionary (Kurath et al. 1954): 3) as
quasi-conj. a) used as a connective (often translating L autem, enim, vero): and, for; b) with
adversative sense (often translating L autem, vero): but; c) with causal sense (often translating
L enim): because, for since or the entry for soothly in the OED: (2) Used to render L.
autem, enim, ergo etc. Obs.. In BT, the introductory sentences to the entry for witodlice
with a somewhat indenite sense, translating many Latin words show that the editors
were well aware of the problems connected with these particles.
4. Counts according to the frequency list of the Microche Concordance to Old English (Healey
and Venezky 1980; MCOE); solice is led under the separately issued high-frequency
words.
5. The exact version of the Latin Vulgate text used as an exemplar for the translation of the WSG
(ed. Liuzza 1994) is not known (Lenker 1997: 2841). The Vulgate text used for the present
purpose is Nestle-Alands edition (Aland and Aland 1984).
6. For the treatment of these particles in traditional grammars and handbooks see Kroon (1995: 1,
132143 [nam, enim], 217225 [autem, vero, at]).
7. Other dictionaries, such as the Mittellateinisches Glossar by Habel and Grbel (1959), refer to
autem and enim as meaningless llers. The only dictionary which includes discourse-
pragmatic information is the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1968), s.v. autem: 5) introducing a fresh
idea or consideration ; 6) expr. indignation or surprise in questions and exclamations.
8. One of the more obvious problems is the rather clumsy Modern English translation verily
which is commonly used for both adverbs.
9. Solice and witodlice are attested in translated texts of the earlier periods of Old English (cf.
MCOE and Swan 1988: 92). These texts do not lend themselves to a discourse-pragmatic
investigation as most of them are too dependent on their Latin exemplars.
10. Cf. Modern English soothsayer and the archaic in sooth. Witod is the past participle of the verb
witian to order, to decide, which is cognate to the verb witan to know.
11. For the four broad categories of grammatical function of adverbials adjuncts, subjuncts,
disjuncts and conjuncts see Quirk et al. (1985: 501647).
12. On the level of the phrase, solice is a manner adjunct modifying secgan. On the level of the
sentence the whole phrase swa ic solice secge serves as a style disjunct.
13. The passages from Apollonius are cited by chapter and line number, the passages from lfrics
Life of St Eustace by line numbers only. The translations, which are taken from Swantons
Anglo-Saxon Prose (1975; Apollonius) and Skeats edition of Eustace (1900), demonstrate the
diculties of translation.
14. As further examples cf. Apollonius 2,14, 4,8, 8,11, 14,30, 16,9, 21,20 etc. or Eustace 128, 137,
202, 209, 369 etc.
15. For this functional shift see Swan (1988: 91110) and Sato (1990). Other similar Old English
introductory adverbs which may even be used as conjunctions are e.g. r, foron, huru, nu,
ono, r, anon, ider, a, eah, onne, sian, swa (Mitchell 1985: 1101, 1862, 2418).
16. Likewise in Modern English, most of the common emphasizers (certainly, indeed, surely, for
certain, for sure) can function as disjuncts (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 8.100).
17. For further attestations of the full phrases cf. Wulfstans homilies (WHom 13,79 And t is
witodlice ful so , Hom 17,65 Eala, eala, so is t ic eow secge , WHom 20.1,1
Leofan men, gecnawa t so is ; cited from MCOE).
18. Traugott nds that the proposed adverbial cline involves increased syntactic freedom and
scope (1995b: 1). This violates the principles of bonding and reduced scope frequently
associated with grammaticalization (1995b: 1); for an accordingly modied denition of
grammaticalization see Traugott (1995b: Chapter 5).
19. In Modern English, sentence adverbials are mostly placed sentence-initially. This is not in all
cases true for Old English, though the examples from the WSG (10, 1418) demonstrate that
there is a tendency to front them. They are always found in the left periphery of the sentence.
For a more detailed discussion of this syntactic slot see Traugott (1995b: 3.1).
20. The syntactic conditions are described as [I]
NP
[[+V, +performative, +communication,
+linguistic, +declarative] [you]
NP
(Adv
manner
) S]
VP
(Schreiber 1972: 325).
21. Most of the research on discourse particles is, sometimes critically, based on Schirin (1986)
(cf. Kroon 1995: 757 and Brinton 1996: 2965 for the literature on discourse analysis and its
terminology). Kroons three levels more or less correspond to the more familiar distinction
between the ideational or propositional, the textual and the interpersonal level. The ideational
or propositional level considers the semantic content proper. On the textual level methods of
organization which create a coherent discourse are investigated. The interpersonal level refers
to the social and expressive functions of communicative acts and moves.
22. According to Brinton, episode boundaries correspond to one of the following points of change:
a change in time, a change in location, a change in participants, a change in the action
sequence, with an orientation toward a new central event, or the activation of a new schema,
a change in possible world, a change from general to specic, or the reverse and a
change in perspective or point of view (Brinton 1996: 4344).
23. The underlined words and phrases in the following examples show the correspondences to
these linguistic clues.
246 URSULA LENKER
24. Witodlice as a boundary marker is e.g. used in John 20,1: Witodlice on anon restedge seo
magdalenisce maria com on mergen r hit leoht wre to re byrgenne ; Assuredly, early
on the Sabbath Mary Magdalene, in the morning before it was light, went to the tomb .
25. The evidence is not as clear when we consider the whole Gospel text, in particular Chapters
513 of the Gospel according to Matthew, where the translator, which may be a dierent one
than in other parts of the translation, indiscriminately renders every autem and enim he or she
can nd in the Latin exemplar by solice. The textual distribution of solice and witodlice for
Latin autem has been repeatedly used to prove that there were at least two translators involved
one for Mt and Joh and the other for Mk and Lk (cf. Lenker 1997: 504).
26. The importance of a manuscripts layout must not be underestimated from a text-semiotic point
of view. As there is commonly no paragraph indentation in Old English manuscripts, the
highlighting of the rst letters was certainly an important and striking feature for both the
copyists and readers of the text.
27. 92% of the about 1200 sentence-initial a-clauses investigated by Kim show one or more of
these discourse shifts (see the summary in Kim 1992: 152). For points of disagreement
concerning the specic discourse functions of a see Enkvist and Wrvik (1987); Kim
(1992: 16) and Brinton (1996: 911).
28. This assumption is further supported by the dierences between the four Gospels. In contrast
to the predominance of a, solice and witodlice in the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark
and Luke, the Gospel according to John uses a much broader variety of lection-initial words,
such as dierent temporal adverbials, determiners or pronouns (listed among others in [19]).
This can be explained by the dierent textual structure of this Gospel which is not organized
as a collection or sequence of episodes, but as long elaborated speeches in which the narrative
parts are interwoven.
29. The exact exemplar of the translation is not known: for the relationship of the Old English
translation, of which only Chapters 122 and 4851 are extant, with the reconstructed Latin
exemplar see Goolden (1958: xxxxv).
30. Antiochus, the wicked king of Antioch, rapes and abuses his daughter and as he therefore does
not want her to get married asks her admirers a supposedly insoluble riddle: whoever is
successful in solving the riddle gets his daughter as a wife, whoever does not is beheaded.
Solice here marks a change in aspect.
31. The syntactic construction (a) V
HAPPEN
(hit) (Adv) t Complement Clause occurs most
frequently with the verbs (ge)limpan, (ge)weoran, beon, but also with gebyrian, getimian, agan
and geslan in poetic texts (Brinton 1996: 116).
32. As an interesting case of an explicit metacomment which shows that the gelamp-construction
is also semantically similar to solice cf. Eustace 361: Nu ic hbbe eall is gesd swa hit
gelamp ; Now I have said all this as it happened (transl. Skeat 1900: 213).
33. For an example in which eornostlice marks a change in the action sequence cf. Eustace 419:
Eornostlice se casere geseah as wundorlican wfersyne, t se leo heora ne ohran, a het
he gefeccan nne renne oxan and one onlan and a halgan r-on don ; Earnestly the
emperor saw this wonderful spectacle, that the lioness touched them not; then bade he fetch a
brazen ox and heat it and put the saints therein (transl. Skeat 1900: 217).
34. In line 153, an episode begins with on am dagum gelamp, the sub-episode (162) with
solice fter am e hi ferdon twegen dagas. Other episodes with an initial gelamp-
construction are e.g. Eustace 141, 316, 391.
35. Cf. Yerkes (1979: xvi): The anonymous reviser changed thousands of words and phrases,
sometimes no doubt to render the Latin more closely, at other times apparently only to bring
the diction of the translation up to date or into conformity with that of his own dialect. The
examples selected for comparison most probably belong to the second group.
36. Cf. also Schirins tentative suggestions as to what specic conditions allow an expression
to be used as a marker: it has to be syntactically detachable from a sentence, it has to be
commonly used in initial position of an utterance, it has to have a range of prosodic contours
(e.g. tonic stress and followed by a pause, phonological reduction), it has to be able to operate
at both local and global levels of discourse this means that it either has to have no meaning,
a vague meaning (1986: 328). For their range of prosodic contours cf. Mitchell
(1985: 2423): I believe that in Old English phonological dierentiation existed between
adverbs and conjunctions of the same spelling; for a similar case cf. the written and spoken
form of Modern English you know.
37. It is evident that the dierent meanings coexist for a certain period. Initially there is only a
redistribution or shift, not a loss, of meaning. In the case of solice and witodlice the originally
salient truth-intensifying meaning persists over time and also constrains the later uses of the
grammaticalized form (cf. Hopper and Traugott 1993: 8793).
Texts
Aland, K. and Aland, B. (eds). 1984. Nestle-Aland. Novum Testamentum Latine. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Goolden, P. (ed.). 1958. The Old English Apollonius of Tyre. Oxford: Oxford University
Press [= Apollonius].
Hecht, H. (ed.). 1900. Bischofs Wrferth von Worcester bersetzung der Dialoge Gregors
des Grossen. Leipzig: Georg H. Wigands Verlag.
Liuzza, R. M. (ed.). 1994. The Old English Version of the Gospels. Volume 1: Text and
Introduction [Early English Text Society 304]. Oxford: Oxford University Press [=
WSG].
Skeat, W. H. (ed.). 1900. lfrics Lives of Saints. Volume 2 [Early English Text Society
114]. Oxford: Oxford University Press [= Eustace].
Zupitza, J. (ed.). 1966. lfrics Grammatik und Glossar. Text und Varianten, 2nd edition
with an introduction by Helmut Gneuss. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlags-
buchhandlung [1880].
References
Bosworth, J. and Toller, T. N. (eds). 188298. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford:
Clarendon [= BT].
Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse
Functions [Topics in English Linguistics 19]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cameron, A., Amos, A. C. and Healey, A. di Paolo (eds). 1986. Dictionary of Old English.
Toronto: Pontical Institute of Mediaeval Studies [= DOE].
248 URSULA LENKER
Enkvist, N. E. and Wrvik, B. 1987. Old English a, temporal chains, and narrative
structure. In Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Historical
Linguistics, A. G. Ramat, O. Carruba and G. Bernini (eds), 220237. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Habel, E. and Grbel, F. (eds). 1959. Mittellateinisches Glossar, 2nd edition. Paderborn:
Schningh.
Healey, A. di Paolo and Venezky, R. (eds). 1980. A Microche Concordance to Old
English. Toronto: Pontical Institute of Mediaeval Studies [=MCOE].
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. 1993. Grammaticalization [Cambridge Textbooks in
Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, T. 1992. The Particle a in the West Saxon Gospels: A Discourse Level Analysis
[European University Studies, Series XIV, Anglo-Saxon Language and Literature
249]. Bern: Lang.
Knig, E. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London:
Routledge.
Kroon, C. 1995. Discourse Particles in Latin: A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at
[Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 4]. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.
Kurath, H., Kuhn, S. M. and Lewis, R. E. (eds). 1954. Middle English Dictionary. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lenker, U. 1997. Die westschsische Evangelienversion und die Perikopenordnungen im
angelschsischen England [Texte und Untersuchungen zur Englischen Philologie
20]. Mnchen: Fink.
Lenker, U. 1999. Actually: solice, treuli, indeed Grammaticalization of truth-
intensifying adverbs in the history of English. Paper presented at the international
symposium on New Reections on Grammaticalization, Potsdam, 1719 June
1999.
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English Syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon.
Prinz, O. and Schneider, J. (eds). 1967. Mittellateinisches Wrterbuch bis zum aus-
gehenden 13. Jahrhundert. Vol. 1: A-B, Mnchen: C. H. Beck.
Sato, A. 1990. Solice and witodlice: A case of functional shift of Old English adverbs.
English Linguistics: Journal of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 7: 3955.
Schreiber, P. 1972. Style disjuncts and the performative analysis. Linguistic Inquiry
3: 321347.
Schirin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5]. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swan, T. 1988. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation
[Troms-Studier i Sprkvitenskap 10]. Oslo: Novus.
Swanton, M. 1975. Anglo-Saxon Prose. London: Dent.
Traugott, E. C. 1995a. Subjectication in grammaticalization. In Subjectivity and
Subjectivisation, D. Stein and S. Wright (eds), 3154. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Traugott, E. C. 1995b. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of
grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester, 1995; version of
11/97 (http://www.stanford.edu/~traugott/ect-papersonline.html).
Yerkes, D. 1979. The Two Versions of Waerferths Translation of Gregorys Dialogues: An
Old English Thesaurus [Toronto Old English Series 4]. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Onginnan/beginnan with bare and to-innitive
in lfric
Bettelou Los
Free University Amsterdam
1. Introduction
Onginnan and beginnan, both meaning begin, allow two innitival comple-
ments: the innitive with to and the bare innitive (without to). There are
syntactic and semantic dierences between the two constructions after these
inchoative verbs which seem to point to auxiliary status when these verbs are
followed by the bare innitive, and lexical status when they are followed by the
to-innitive. As an auxiliary, onginnan/beginnan with the bare innitive is shown
to have been subject to considerable semantic bleaching. When onginnan/
beginnan are followed by a to-innitive, there is no bleaching: they are full
lexical verbs with inchoative meaning. This situation is reached at least by the
time of lfric (late Old English). The two constructions with these verbs in his
texts exhibit a number of syntactic dierences; this paper will argue that these
follow from the interplay of the semantic, aspectual dierences observed
between the two innitival constructions with these verbs, and certain discourse
eects that are typical of narrative contexts.
The development of Old English verbs capable of taking a bare-innitival
complement is particularly interesting in the light of the general question of the
syntactic status of the forerunners of the present-day English auxiliaries. At some
stage in the Middle English period lexical verbs can no longer be complemented
by a bare innitive, only by a to-innitive; the bare innitive becomes the
prerogative of a small set of grammaticalized verbs that have evolved into
functional elements with no argument structure of their own. This study exam-
ines the evidence for auxiliary versus full lexical status of two inchoative verbs,
onginnan and beginnan, at a later stage of Old English.
252 BETTELOU LOS
Callaway (1913: 678) notes that the co-occurrence of both innitives after
onginnan/beginnan is particularly noticeable in the works of lfric, which is one
of the reasons why this investigation into the use of bare and to-innitives
concentrates on his texts. Moreover, restricting the corpus to the works of lfric
makes it possible to examine every instance of onginnan/beginnan in its context,
which would otherwise hardly be a feasible task because of the sheer numbers in
which these verbs are attested in Old English. Studying the work of a single
author also minimizes the risk of interference from dialectal or diachronic factors
(although, of course, the risk of interference from scribes remains see Allen
1992). lfrics works have the further advantage of consisting, for the most part,
of original, untranslated prose; and although lfric draws heavily on various
Latin and Greek sources, his views on the translation process, explicitly stated in
his preface to the translation of Genesis in Gen Pref 93,
1
make it unlikely
that he would opt for an over-literal translation.
A search for all occurrences of these verbs in the works of lfric resulted
in the following gures. Onginnan was complemented by the bare innitive 44
times, and by the to-innitive 22 times. Beginnan was complemented 13 times
by a bare innitive, and 46 times by a to-innitive. There is no obvious explana-
tion for why we nd a bare innitive after onginnan/beginnan in some cases and
a to-innitive after another. Although lfrics prose has been described as
rhythmical, the selection of a bare or a to-innitive in his texts does not appear
to be dictated by prosodic considerations; it must also be remembered that
lfrics rhythmical prose is by no means as strict in its metrical rules as the
relatively rm patterns of Old English poetry (see also Pope 1967: 105).
Callaway studies a number of possible factors, such as meaning dierences,
semantic bleaching, the distance between innitive and governing verb; but in
the end he concludes that the dierentiation of the two innitives remains
unexplained:
Be the reason what it may, the inected innitive caught the fancy of lfric,
and to him we owe 25 out of the total of 37 inected innitives after
onginnan. On the other hand, lfric uses the uninected innitive 82 times
without making any rational dierentiation between the two so far as I can
discover. (Callaway 1913: 67)
2
We will see in the remainder of this chapter that Callaways comments contain
powerful pointers to a coherent account of the two innitives after these
aspectualizers, and that there is no need to have recourse to Callaways conclu-
sion that the uctuation in the two forms of the innitive may be due in part
merely to the lateness of lfrics works, by whose time the distinction between
ONGINNAN/BEGINNAN WITH BARE AND TO-INFINITIVE 253
the two forms had begun to break down (Callaway 1913: 67). The issue of
semantic bleaching and the possibility of auxiliary status are indeed the prime
ingredients in the account of the selection of a bare or of a to-innitive which
we will present below. We will start with a more detailed look at the syntactic
dierences between the two complements.
2. General syntactic dierences between bare and to-innitival
complements
In general, bare innitive-complements exhibit a less xed word order than
to-innitival complements; the bare innitive very frequently precedes the nite
verb, as in (1):
(1) He geseah a standan swie gehende one deofol,
he saw then stand very nearby the devil
and he hine orsorhlice axian ongan,
and he him cheerfully ask began
Hwt stendst u her wlhreowa deor? LS (Martin) 1364
what stand you here cruel animal?
He then saw the devil standing quite nearby, and he began to ask
him cheerfully: what are you standing here for, cruel animal?
With to-innitives this order is extremely rare. This was already noticed by van
der Gaaf (quoted by Callaway 1913: 65), and Georg Riggert, who adds at the
very end of his dissertation, almost as an afterthought: Bezglich der Stellung
des prpos. Inf. ist zu bemerken, da stets der Innitiv dem regierenden Worte
folgt (As regards the position of the prepositional innitive, it may be observed
that it follows the word that governs it) (Riggert 1909: 75). The same is noticed
by Bock (1931: 154).
A second typical feature of bare innitival complements after onginnan/
beginnan is that the matrix verb (i.e. onginnan/beginnan) in such a construction
can be pervious to the argument structure of the innitive. This becomes
immediately evident with impersonal innitives: onginnan/beginnan itself does
not normally occur with an impersonal argument structure, i.e. with a dative
experiencer; but when followed by an impersonal innitive, this changes, and we
nd constructions like (2):
254 BETTELOU LOS
(2) a ongan me langian for minre hftnyde and ic ongan
then began me grieve because of my imprisonment and I began
gyrnan, t LS 35 (VitPatr) 330
yearn that
Then I began to nd my imprisonment tedious and I began to yearn
that
See also Denison (1990: 148) and Warner (1992: 186, 194195). Both note that
onginnan + bare innitive sides with the modal auxiliaries in this respect; they
too show this perviousness to the argument structure of the following innitive.
There are more such examples with onginnan/beginnan, but only with bare
innitives; it is the rst piece of evidence which seems to suggest that
onginnan/beginnan with the bare innitive is an auxiliary, with no argument
structure of its own.
These two syntactic features appear to exemplify typical dierences
between bare and to-innitival complements in general; there are, however, some
syntactic patterns that point to a further dierence between the two innitival
complements which is peculiar to onginnan/beginnan.
3. Onginnan/beginnan in lfric: Syntactic patterns
In (3) we nd another frequent pattern, with the matrix verb in second position
in a main clause, after the adverb a:
(3) a ongunnon a Iudei. hine eft toran. mid heardum stanum.
then began the Jews him again stone with hard stones.
and heora an hine sloh mid ormtum stencge.
and of-them one him struck with enormous cudgel
inn o t bragen CHom II, 18 172.100
inside the brain
then the Jews began to stone him again with hard stones and one of
them struck him a blow with an enormous cudgel in the brain
A second frequent pattern is aorded by example (4), where we nd a to-innit-
ive with onginnan, with the matrix verb sentence-initial:
(4) Ongann a Augustinus mid his munecum to geefenlcenne
began then Augustine with his monks to emulate
re apostola lif mid singalum gebedum
CHom II, 9 78.205
the apostles lives with continuous prayers
Augustinus with his monks then began to emulate the lives of the
apostles with continuous prayers
In (5) we nd a to-innitive with beginnan, also in initial position of a conjoined
clause:
(5) a cempan a t nextan oncneowan urh a nytena t
the soldiers then at last realized through the animals that
hi mid godcundre mihte gefstnode wron, and begunnon to
they with divine power fastened were and began to
axienne t orum wegfarendum hwt se man wre e hi
ask from other wayfarers what the man were whom they
swa wlhreowlice beoton. LS (Martin) 990
so cruelly beat
the soldiers then nally realized because of the animals that they
had been fastened to the ground by means of divine power, and
began to ask other wayfarers what the man was whom they had
beaten so mercilessly.
This construction is in some ways ambiguous: because the subject of the
conjoined clause is identical to that of the preceding clause it is often ellipted,
and if it is ellipted it is dicult to tell whether we are dealing with a Verb-rst
construction or not. Similarly, in (6) we have an example of a Verb-rst con-
struction which, though not preceded by and, shows similar ellipsis of the subject:
(6) ongunnon a to oftorgenne mid heardum stanum one
began then to stone with hard stones the
eadigan stephanum and he cleopode and cw: Drihten
blessed Stephen and he called and said: Lord
hlend. underfoh minne gast CHom I, 3 48.2
Saviour receive my spirit
then [they] began to stone the blessed Stephen to death with hard
stones and he called out and said: Lord Saviour, receive my soul
For the moment, I have subsumed the few examples of V1 in patterns as in (5)
and (6) also under the heading Verb-rst, although they are ambiguous in that
256 BETTELOU LOS
there is no overt subject (see Mitchell 1985: 3934; Stockwell and Minkova 1990
and Koopman 1992: 67 for discussion). Comparing such V1 patterns with the a
V construction yields interesting results, which suggest that these patterns are not
entirely random:
It is clear from this table that the bare innitive exhibits a clear preference for
Table 1. Respective numbers of constructions with a V and V1 with onginnan and beginnan
Verbs a V with bare
innitive
V1 with bare
innitive
a V with
to-innitive
V1 with
to-innitive
onginnan
beginnan
totals
17
6
23
1
1
2
3
9
12
4
5
9
the a V construction, whereas V1 constructions tend to occur with to-innitives.
The Fisher exact probability test, which is particularly useful when numbers are
small (Siegel and Castellan 1988: 103), returns a signicant level of probability
(two-tailed, p <1%). It seems, then, that the bare innitive is dispreferred when
onginnan/beginnan is clause-initial.
In the remainder of this paper we will argue that the V1 construction marks
a turning point in the narrative, a thematic discontinuity, an interruption; and that
this function is only compatible with a to-innitive, not with a bare innitive,
because only to-innitives could signal ingression by lfrics time, and only the
event described by a to-innitive could be interrupted. This aspectual dierence
between the two innitives will be discussed in the next section.
4. An aspectual dierence between the two innitives after onginnan/
beginnan
4.1 Semantic bleaching
It has long been noticed that ginnan begin, the stem form of onginnan and
beginnan, appears to show considerable semantic bleaching in Middle English,
particularly in Chaucer, with the verb losing its original inchoative meaning and
evolving into some sort of auxiliary; Einenkel (1891: 89) refers to the combina-
tion of ginnan + bare innitive as the most beloved periphrasis of Middle
English. Some work has been done to try to establish whether there was any
degree of bleaching of these verbs already in Old English. Most writers appear
to rely on intuitive judgements (see Mitchell 1985: 676 for some discussion),
although Funke (1922: 127) and Moss (1938: 238) link the intuitive interpreta-
tion of some of the Old English instances as bleached to the Aktionsart of the
following innitive. Although Funkes main concern is Middle English, for Old
English he observes that onginnan in its earlier, unbleached form is a perfective
lexical verb, and its function is to focus the attention on the beginning of the
action expressed by the innitive (Funke 1922: 5); one of his examples is (7):
(7) Swa a drihtguman dreamum lifdon,
so these noble men joys lived
eadiglice, ot an ongan
blessedly until one began
fyrene fremman feond on helle. Beo 99101
evil perform end in hell
Thus these noble men lived in joy blessedly, until a certain one
began to do evil, a end from hell.
He contrasts this with examples like (13) below, which he, too, interprets as
purely descriptive, i.e. bleached (Funke 1922: 9). Moss (1938: 238), too,
observes that onginnan in earlier Old English was used only with lexical verbs
of durative meaning, i.e. only with innitives that allowed an inchoative reading.
Both Moss and Funke conclude that there was already some degree of bleaching
in Old English, which, as we will see later, is also borne out by our own ndings
below.
Note that, in eect, Funke and Moss oer a diagnostic test (durativity)
which goes beyond intuitions; and it is this test which we nd further elaborated
in Brinton (1988), who investigates the issue in greater detail.
Brinton relies on the work of Freed (1979: 2540), who suggests that
aspectualizers (e.g. inchoatives) take events as complements, not propositions
or objects. An event can be segmented into dierent temporal stages: it has an
onset, a nucleus and a coda. Ingressive aspectualizers refer to these
temporal stages. For present-day American English Freed observes, for example,
that begin refers to the initial segment of the nucleus of the event, while start
refers to the onset, which explains why one can start to do something and then
not do it, but not begin to do it and then not do it. Aspect and Aktionsart
meaning interact: for ingressive aspectualizers to be compatible with their
complements, these complements must refer to situations that are segmentable
that have an onset, or a nucleus. Activities (like laugh or run) consist of a
nucleus, while accomplishments (like bake a cake) consist of onset, nucleus and
258 BETTELOU LOS
coda; achievements (like get married or arrive at the party) and states (like
live), however, are not segmentable and should not be compatible with ingressive
aspectualizers.
Brinton (1988: 85) shows that ingressive aspectualizers can indeed occur
with states but achievements remain awkward. Brinton makes the important
observation that the incompatibility is due to the punctual nature of achieve-
ments; because a punctual situation begins and ends at the same time, it is not
possible to focus on the beginning point apart from the rest of the situation
(Brinton 1988: 85). If the argument of an achievement is an unspecied plural or
mass noun, begin is possible, because it marks the beginning of a series; cf. in
this respect (8) and (9) (Brintons 8f and 8h):
(8) *A friend began {to arrive/arriving} at the party
(9) {Friends/People} began to arrive at the party
In other words, it must be possible to regard the situation as durative or iterative
in some way.
When Brinton comes to investigate the development of the aspectualizers in
the history of English, she remarks that she does not regard the presence or
absence of to as signicant in any way (Brinton 1988: 119). She notes, however,
that the ingressive meaning is weakened in many cases, especially with Middle
English ginnen, so that especially the past tense sequence of gan+innitive
appears to be no more than a periphrastic preterite (Brinton 1988: 120). As a
diagnostic of such a pleonastic reading Brinton proposes the following criterion:
when Middle English ginnen (or, of course, Old English onginnan and beginnan)
occurs with a non-repeatable punctual verb (i.e. an achievement verb without an
unspecied plural or mass noun object) or with a durative or iterative adverbial,
an ingressive reading is impossible, because there is no segmentable nucleus that
onginnan or beginnan can refer to. She gives six examples from Old English
which are identied by this criterion as pleonastic, i.e. non-ingressive, ve of
which are with a bare innitive, given below as (10)(13) (her 70a,b, 71a and
72a,b; Brinton 1988: 160):
(10) ge to deae one deman ongunnon El 302b3a
you to death that-one judge began
you judged (*began to judge) that one to death
(11) ge a sciran miht deman ongunnon El 310b11a
you then bright power judge began
you then judged (*began to judge) the bright power (of Christ)
(12) and a mid gettredum strle ongann sceotan
LS 25 (MichaelMor) 45
and then with poisoned arrow began shoot
and then with a poisoned arrow [he] shot (*began to shoot)
(13) Elles ne ongunnon rran on roderum, nyme riht and so,
else not began perform in heavens except right and truth
ron engla weard for oferhydge GenA, B 20b-2b
until angels guardian for pride
[They] performed (*began to perform) in the heavens nothing else ex-
cept right and truth until the guardian of angels out of sheer pride
3
Her only example of this bleached use of onginnan with a to-innitive she
gives as (14) (her 71b):
(14) Witodlice ongann se hiredes ealdor to agyldenne one pening
CHom II, 5 46,137
Certainly repaid (*began to repay) the elder of the house the penny
Its ellipsis marks it as an example from Callaway (1913: 53). Here is the
sentence in its entirety:
(15) Witodlice fram am endenextan ongann se hiredes ealdor
truly from the last-ones began the households lord
to agyldenne one pening.
to pay the penny
Truly, from the last ones began the lord of the household to pay the
penny.
This sentence appears in the context of a discussion of the Parable of the
Vineyard (the last will be the rst, and the rst will be the last). Even those
workers who did not start work in the vineyard until the eleventh hour will get
a full days wages at the end of the day one penny. The workers have lined
up to receive their wages, and their employer is in the process of giving each of
them a penny, starting with the workers who came in last, at the eleventh hour;
he is paying out a multiplicity of pennies, one to each worker. The object,
though singular in form, implies an unspecied plural, so that the situation
described in (15) is clearly iterative, even though the Aktionsart meaning is one
of achievement. It is certainly not pleonastic.
Brinton may well have missed an important generalization here: the
bleached, pleonastic instances of these ingressive aspectualizers only occur with
the bare innitive in Old English. When the to-innitive is used, these verbs
260 BETTELOU LOS
always have their full ingressive meaning. Thus we nd in lfric a few exam-
ples of the pleonastic use of onginnan/beginnan + bare innitive, e.g. with a
durative adverbial:
(16) a ongann se apostol hi ealle lran ofer twelf mona.
then began the apostle them all teach for twelve months
a deopan lare be drihtnes tocyme. to yssere woruld
CHom II, 18 170.27
the deep lore about lords coming to this world
Then the apostle taught (*began to teach) them all for twelve
months the profound doctrine of the Lords coming to this world
There are, however, no examples of such pleonasms with a to-innitive.
A nal point to note here is that lfric himself, in his Latin Grammar,
systematically employs onginnan+to-innitive to translate Latin inchoatives, and
not the bare innitive, e.g. calesco, ic onginne to wearmigenne I begin to
become warm (Gram 212.3; see also Mitchell 1985: 675). This further
supports the idea that only the to-innitive expresses strong ingression.
4.2 The grammaticalization of onginnan/beginnan with the bare innitive
If strong ingression is restricted to onginnan/beginnan with the to-innitive, what
exactly is it that is expressed by the bare innitive with these verbs? Bleaching,
after all, suggests not only a loss of lexical meaning, but also a corresponding
gain in the functional domain. A suggestion of what this functional meaning
might be is to be found in Mustanoja (1960: 611), who claims that Old English
onginnan, when followed by a (bare) innitive, can be said to carry out two
principal functions: (1) it brings out the ingressive and perfective aspects of the
action represented by the innitive, and (2) it intensies the descriptive force of
the innitive. Mitchell (1985: 676) notes quite rightly that it is not easy to see
how the same verb can bring out both the ingressive and perfective aspects of an
action; and as we have seen, ingression, at least in the works of lfric, is
strongly associated with the to-innitive, not with the bare innitive. The
suggestion of the combination onginnan + bare innitive expressing perfective
aspect is an interesting one, however, especially because there are occasional
examples of this construction being used to translate Latin perfects. One such
example is discussed in Riggert (1909: 46): persecuti sunt [they] are persecuted
shows up as ehtan ongunnon [lit. began to persecute] in Old English (PPs
118.161), which is why he notes: Es wird nicht der Anfang, das Beginnen einer
Handlung ausgedrckt, sondern vielmehr die Ttigkeit selbst oder deren Vollendung
(it [onginnan with bare innitive] does not express the beginning of the action
but rather the event itself or its completion) (Riggert 1909: 46).
If onginnan/beginnan + bare innitive tends to express a perfective, and
onginnan/ beginnan+to-innitive tends to express an ingressive aspect, it means
that only the action in the latter is viewed as temporally segmentable. This ties
in with the ndings of Fischer (1995: 20), who notes that bare innitives often
signal an entailment relationship and that they share the same tense domain as
their governing verbs, unlike to-innitives (Fischer 1995: 19). One of Fischers
Middle English examples of a to-innitive is with ginnan begin:
(17) And to thise clerkes two he [Nero] gan to preye/ To sleen hym
and to these clerks two he began to pray to kill him
(Chaucer, Monks Tale 25452546; Fischer 1995: 20)
And to these two clerks he [Nero] began to pray to kill him
Fischer comments: The clerks can still refuse Nero an easy death and walk out
on him (Fischer 1995: 20), i.e. the event is viewed as interruptable. If a bare
innitive had been used here, this would not have been the case.
It is this increasing grammaticalization of onginnan/beginnan + bare
innitive that ultimately explains the anomaly in the gures of Table 1. Bare
innitives after onginnan/beginnan no longer allow temporal segmentation in
lfric, and its selection signals to the hearer that the action described in its
complement should be viewed as being completed without interruption. In the
next section we will see why this property of bare innitives makes it particular-
ly compatible with the a V pattern, but not with the V1 pattern.
5. Onginnan/beginnan in lfric: Discourse eects
5.1 Episode boundaries and action markers
The role of a as a discourse marker has been the subject of a number of
studies; many of these favour the Old English chronicle as the source of their
data, as a is particularly frequent in this text. While many scholars agree that a
serves an important discourse function, the results are not always equivocal.
Sometimes a is argued to mark the boundaries between paragraphs, or more
precisely, episodes, i.e. the levels of discourse intermediate between the sentence
and the text. There appears to be a general consensus that the central characteris-
tics of an episode include thematic unity, which depends on the continuity of
both participant and action (see Brinton [1993: 7374] for more discussion). The
262 BETTELOU LOS
boundaries of episodes are characterized by both semantic and formal features.
Brinton (1993: 74) lists the following discontinuities by which episode bound-
aries may be formally marked:
a. a change in time;
b. a change in location;
c. a change in participants;
d. a change in the action sequence, with an orientation toward a new central
event, or the activation of a new schema;
e. a change in possible world, for example, from the real world to the
ctional world, from the real world to the dream world, or from the
physical world to the world of thought;
f. a change from general to specic, or the reverse; and
g. a change in perspective or point of view.
Sometimes a is described as a mere sequencer of events, with the role of
episode boundary marker reserved for ond a and then (Turville-Petre 1974),
although it has been argued that a can also head episodes when not preceded by
ond, e.g. by Enkvist (1986), who calls a an action marker, and adds that it
tends to occur in passages and statements describing action, as opposed to
background information (Enkvist 1986: 301). It is worthwhile quoting Enkvists
numbered theses in which he recapitulates his comments on the function of a:
i. Old English a is an action marker;
ii. As actions in narrative tend to be foregrounded, a can also be regarded as
a foregrounding device;
iii. When a collocates with stative verbs it may be taken to serve as a fore-
grounding dramatizer highlighting a dramatic view of stative conditions;
iv. The main structural functions of a are not only to mark distinctions
between foregrounded action and background, but also to indicate the
division of narrative discourse into narrative units;
v. At the same time a indicates the sequencing of events on the main story line;
vi. We may expect a to have been common in impromptu storytelling, where
a clear marking of distinctions between foreground and background, a clear
ordering and sequencing of events, and a conspicuous signalling of narrative
units and their hierarchies are especially important to ease the processing-
load under real-time conditions. Therefore a high frequency of a might be
regarded as a marker of colloquial, lively, impromptu-speech-like narrative
style (Enkvist 1986: 306307).
It seems clear, then, that the a V-pattern is pre-eminently associated with
rorcocNbiNc in terms of Hopper (1979), in that it belongs to the language
of the actual storyline, the parts of the narrative which relate events belonging
to the skeletal structure of the discourse (Hopper 1979: 213) and not to n:cx-
cocNbiNc, the language of supportive material which does not itself narrate
the main events. Because foregrounded clauses denote the discrete, measured
events of the narrative, the verbs tend to be punctual rather than durative or
iterative, and there is a further tendency for these punctual verbs to have
perfective aspect (Hopper 1979: 215).
When we turn our attention to the other pattern relevant to our discussion
of onginnan/beginnan, V1, we nd that it, too, is associated with ror-
cocNbiNc. It is often analysed in these studies as identical to a V at a
deeper level (e.g. Stockwell 1977, and also Hopper 1979), implying that it is
actually the order VS that signals an episode boundary, with a being a kind of
optional extra. It has often been remarked that the V1 pattern in Germanic, or
narrative inversion, has a special stylistic function, usually loosely described as
typifying lively narrative (e.g. Kiparsky 1995: 163; Thrinsson 1985: 172) or
vividness of action (Stockwell 1977: 291). There are hints that this special
stylistic function can, at least for Old English, be described more accurately in
discourse analysis terms. Mitchell reports, for example, an interesting suggestion
by Fred C. Robinson that V1 in Old English often seems to mark a turning-point
in the narrative, a transition, or a change of pace, just as a new paragraph does
in MnE prose (Mitchell 1985: 3933). These are of course precisely the
functions of the episode boundary marker.
As a V, the rst pattern, is also credited with this function, these com-
ments do not make it easy to tease out the salient dierence between the two
patterns which might explain the contrast we found in innitival complement
with onginnan/beginnan in lfric. If a V and V1 are both episode boundary
markers, why would the former pattern favour a bare innitive, and the latter a
to-innitive?
I would like to suggest that both patterns are indeed foregrounding devices,
but that as episode boundary markers they do not have the same status. The
dierence in the work of lfric is that onginnan/beginnan in V1 position invari-
ably indicate a thematic discontinuity, i.e. mark episodes in which the narrative
takes a dramatic turn. In contrast, a V marks the smooth ow of narrative
events and is primarily the action marker in terms of Enkvist (1986). If it
marks episode boundaries at all in lfric, such episodes are not likely to
introduce striking turns of event, but rather represent the smooth progression of
the narrative.
264 BETTELOU LOS
5.2 a V as episode boundary marker: Thematic continuity
Enkvist compares a fragment of an lfric narrative text with a more archetypal
example of colloquial, lively, impromptu-speech-like narrative style, namely
the Ohthere-Wulfstan interpolation in Alfreds Orosius, and notes that the lfric
text is more artful and sophisticated, consisting of a structure describable on at
least three levels, which we may call text, episode (marked with a), and action
(consisting of narrative statements within the a-marked episode) (Enkvist
1986: 306). Although Enkvist regards all four instances of a in his discussion of
the lfric text (CHom II, 37, 272.119) as a device to divide the text into
four narrative units, it is worth pointing out that three of these units are headed
by the a V pattern, whereas the third unit is not; and that this may not be
accidental, as there is a clear functional dierence between the a in this third
unit and the a in the a V constructions of the other three: it is this third unit
in which the plot thickens and the pace of the story is stepped up (note that this
change in pace is also formally marked by hwt, a foregrounding dramatizer
[Brinton 1990: 56]). When a occurs in a a V pattern, it is more than an action
marker that marks the beginning of a new narrative unit. A clue to this special
function can be found in Wilburs (1988) discussion of the functions of th, the
Old Saxon and Old High German cognate of a (mentioned by Brinton 1990).
He also observes a dierence: when th occurs in sentence-initial position, it
signals the progression of the narrative; in other positions it has another function.
We will argue below that the same situation obtains in Old English, although
with a further renement: it is not simply sentence-initial a, but particularly
sentence-initial a V that signals this narrative progression; and we will further
argue that a V is systematically used to signal straightforward narrative
progression without sudden turns in the plot, i.e. thematically continuous.
The following passage from lfric illustrates this idea in more detail, and
also shows how the idea of thematic continuity interacts with onginnan/beginnan
+bare innitive. For convenience, it is cut up into narrative units in (18)(24).
After a short exposition on the way God punished entire communities for
their sins in the days before Moses, the narrative proper begins (the relevant as
in bold). The rst narrative unit has God announce his plan to Moses. For a
discussion of the correlative a a , a V pattern in this unit see Enkvist
(1986: 305):
(18) Eft a a God wolde wrecan mid fyre a fulan
after then when God wanted destroy with re the foul
forligeras s fracodostan mennisces, Sodomitiscra eoda,
fornicators of-that wickedest nation Sodomitic people
a sde he hit Abrahame. LS (Pr Moses) 190
then said he it Abraham.
Afterwards when God wanted to destroy with re the foul fornica-
tors of that most wicked nation, the people of Sodom, then he
announced it to Abraham.
The second unit contains Moses response. He pleads with God to save the town
if as few as fty righteous men can still be found. The pace of the narrative
quickens, formally marked by a a which is not part of a a V pattern:
(19) Habraham a bd one lmihtigan us, u Drihten, e
Abraham then asked the Almighty thus Thou Lord who
demst eallum deadlicum sce, ne scealt u one rihtwisan
judges all mortal esh not shalt Thou the righteous
ofslean mid am arleasan. Gif r beo ftig wera wunigende
destroy with the wicked If there are fty men living
on am earde, rihtwise tforan e, ara him eallum.
on the Earth righteous before Thee spare them all
LS (Pr Moses) 193196
Abraham then asked the Almighty thus, thou Lord, who judges all
mortal esh, you should not destroy the righteous together with the
wicked. If there were fty men living in the land, righteous before
you, spare them all.
God grants his plea in the third unit. Note again that a V again expresses a
thematic continuity, as it introduces the second member of an adjacency pair,
i.e. an answer to a question:
(20) a cw God him to eft, Ic arige him eallum gif ic r nde
then said God him to again, I spare them all if I there nd
ftig rihtwisra.
fty righteous LS (Pr Moses) 198
Then God said to him, I will spare them all if I nd there fty
righteous ones.
Abraham makes his second plea in the fourth unit. Will God save the towns if he
nds as few as forty righteous men? Again a V, and no thematic discontinuity,
266 BETTELOU LOS
because (21) is a repeat of (19), only with the number of 50 reduced by ten.
Note that began is here followed by the bare innitive biddan ask. Although
this verb indicates an activity, an Aktionsart meaning that in theory allows
temporal segmentation, the selection of the bare innitive, as opposed to a
to-innitive, signals to the hearer that the event of asking will be completed
without interruption:
(21) a began Abraham eft biddan God georne, t he hi ne
then began Abraham again ask God eagerly that he them not
fordyde gif r feowertig wron rihtwisra wera wunigende
destroy if there forty were righteous men living
on re leode LS (Pr Moses) 200
in that nation
Then Abraham began again to ask God eagerly, that he should not
destroy them if there were forty righteous men living in that nation.
Unit ve: his plea is again granted:
(22) God him s tiode, LS (Pr Moses) 203
God him that granted
God granted him that,
Unit six sets up a little loop telescoping several rounds of pleading on Moses
part and granting on Gods part. Note that the phrase he began git biddan refers
to a durative, not a punctual situation: he kept on asking until . The use of
the bare innitive signals that the rounds of pleading will not be interrupted by
other events, and that the hearer should infer that there are three more rounds of
pleading, with the respective numbers of just men rst reduced to thirty, then
twenty, and nally ten:
(23) and he began git biddan ot he becom to tyn mannum, and him
tiode God a, t he nolde hi fordon gif he funde r tyn rihtwisra
manna, LS (Pr Moses) 203206
and he began to ask further until he came to ten men, and God
granted him then, that he would not destroy them if he found there
ten righteous men,
Unit seven concludes the episode:
(24) and he wende a him fram LS (Pr Moses) 207
and he then turned away from him.
The compatibility of the a V pattern and onginnan/beginnan with the bare
innitive is due to the fact that the use of the bare innitive after these verbs
signals that the event in question will proceed without interruption, as onginnan/
beginnan here does not focus on the onset, or even beginning of the nucleus, of
the action, while the a V pattern signals a straightforward progression of the
narrative without sudden changes.
5.3 V1 as an episode boundary marker: Thematic discontinuity
The question remains why the bare innitive is dispreferred when onginnan/
beginnan occurs clause-initially. We saw above that the literature on V1 con-
structions suggests that V1, too, functions as an episode boundary marker. What
makes it so dierent from the a V pattern is that V1 also signals a thematic
discontinuity, i.e. a sudden change in events, or a turning point. Every single
occurrence of the V1-pattern with onginnan/beginnan +to-innitive in the work
of lfric can be argued to signal an episode boundary of this kind. Examples are
for instance CHom II, 38 282.89 in which the action switches to other partici-
pants, or LS (Martin) 165 in which the victim nally manages to turn the
tables on his oppressors; similar turnings in the plot occur in LS (Martin) 990
(=(5) above) and LS (Chrysanthus) 170. A change in perspective or point of
view occurs in LS (Oswald) 45, where the line of the original narrative is
taken up again after a diversion; and a change in the possible world, e.g. from
the real to the ctional or vice versa occurs in CHom I, 3 46.3548.5, where
clause-initial onginnan/beginnan + to-innitive signals a lengthy interruption of
the narrative by an authorial exposition. The latter instance is particularly
instructive because it can be compared to a passage from CHom II, 18 which
describes basically the same plot. Both passages can be divided into three
narrative units : (i) the crowd decide to stone a saint (St. Stephen in CHom I,
3, St. James in CHom II, 18); (ii) the stoning is interrupted by the saint
asking God to forgive the sins of the people stoning him; (iii) the stoning is
resumed and brought to a close without a further hitch. The second unit (example
(25ab) below) is particularly illustrative of the way in which the ingressive
aspect of onginnan/beginnan + to-innitive and V1 word order interact, as it is
the one that contains a thematic discontinuity the interruption of the stoning-
event. In the James narrative (25a) this unit is introduced by a; note that this a
is not part of a a V construction, as such a construction would signal continuity.
Because the narrative employs the open-ended toran to stone, to throw stones
at, which by itself does not imply to the death, the interruption of the stoning
event itself need not be strongly marked, only by ac but. In the Stephen narrative
268 BETTELOU LOS
in (25b), however, the resultative or perfective sense of oftoran stone to
death in contrast to the open-ended toran stone forces the selection of a
to-innitive after ongunnon (in bold): a bare innitive would have created the
impression that Stephen was killed o at this point, and he cleopode in the next
clause would then have come as a bit of a surprise to the audience. The interrup-
tion of the action is anticipated by the to-innitive. The discontinuity is more
strongly marked than in the James fragment, as it is introduced by the V1
pattern; one reason might be that the interruption of the narrative is a long one,
and does not interrupt only the stoning itself, but also the narrative: the saints
last words are followed by an authorial exposition explaining the crucial
importance of these last words, as they led to Sauls conversion (cf. change in
possible worlds, Brintons [g] in Section 5.1 above).
(25) a. Hi a upastigon. and hine underbc scufon. and mid
they then ascended and him from-behind pushed and with
stanum torfodon one sofstan Iacob; Ac he ns acweald
stones stoned the righteous James but he not-was killed
acweald urh am healican fylle. ac gebigde his cneowu
killed by the high drop but bent his knees
on gebedum sona. and bd one lmihtigan for am
prayers at-once and asked the Almighty for the
arleasum cwellerum. t he him forgeafe a fyrnlican synne
cruel assasins that he them forgave the earlier sins
CHom II, 18 172.957
They then ascended and pushed him from behind and stoned
the righteous James with stones; But he was not killed by the
high drop, but bent his knees in prayer at once and prayed to
the Almighty for the cruel assassins that he would forgive them
the earlier sins
b. ongunnon a to oftorgenne mid heardum stanum one
began then to stone-to-death with hard stones the
eadigan stephanum and he cleopode and cw: () min
blessed Stephen and he called-out and said () my
drihten: ne sete u as dda him to synne
lord not set thou those deeds them as sin
CHom I, 3 48.25
[they] began then to stone to death with hard stones the bless-
ed Stephen and he called out and said: () my Lord, do not
lay those deeds to their charge as a sin
In the third unit the stoning is resumed. The transition to this unit is marked in
the Stephen narrative (26b) by a, which indicates a new narrative unit; the
James narrative in (26a), however, uses onginnan this time. As there is no second
interruption, a bare innitive is now possible (onginnan +innitive in bold):
(26) a. a ongunnon a Iudei. hine eft toran. mid heardum
then began the Jews him again stone with hard
stanum. and heora an hine sloh mid ormtum stencge.
stones and of-them one him struck with enormous cudgel
inn o t bragen; us wear gemartirod se mra apostol
inside the brain thus was martyred the famous apostle
CHom II, 18 172.100
then the Jews began to stone him again with hard stones and
one of them struck him a blow with an enormous cudgel in the
brain; thus was martyred the famous apostle
b. and he mid am worde a gewat to am lmihtigum
and he with that word then departed to the Almighty
lende e he on heofenum healicne standende geseah;
Saviour whom he in heavens high standing saw
CHom I, 3 48.5
and with those words he then departed to the Almighty
Saviour whom he had seen standing high in the heavens
To summarize, then, in both cases the stoning is interrupted by the martyrs last
words. The Stephen fragment of (25b) uses onginnan+to-innitive to describe the
rst abortive attempt to stone St Stephen; this event is then interrupted by
Stephens last words. In contrast, the James fragment of (26a) uses
onginnan+bare innitive to indicate that the procedure is resumed and brought
to a close without a further hitch.
6. The fate of inchoative markers
The change in onginnan appears to be an instance of grammaticalization, rst
described as the attribution of a grammatical character to a once autonomous
word (Meillet [1912] 1948: 131). Kuryowiczs description of the process further
elaborates on the meaning of the term grammatical: Grammaticalization
consists in the increase of the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to
a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status, e.g.
from a derivative formant to an inectional one (cited in Heine, Claudi and
270 BETTELOU LOS
Hnnemeyer 1992: 3). This idea was developed further by Haspelmath, who
suggests that some grammaticalization processes appear to move along a
derivational/inectional cline (Haspelmath 1996). Derivational suxes typically
impose restrictions on the type of Head they occur with. The West-Germanic
action-noun sux -ung (Old English, Modern German) or -ing (Modern Dutch),
for instance, cannot attach to just any verb; as it has an inherently perfective
meaning, it can only attach to verbs that denote achievements and processes
(Hoekstra and van der Putten 1988: 175); the innitival sux -en in these
languages, however, may attach to any verb.
The concepts of derivation and inection as representing opposite poles of
a grammaticalization cline could also be argued to describe the development of
onginnan. In its original inchoative meaning onginnan cannot be paired with just
any verb, only with verbs that carry the right Aktionsart meaning (durative or
iterative, or in Vendlers classication, activities or achievements). The bleached,
perfective variant of onginnan that only occurs with a bare innitive, on the
other hand, shows anities with the inectional process: it is a true auxiliary in
that it may occur with any verb.
There are abundant precedents for ingressive markers being grammaticalized
to auxiliaries or inectional morphemes. Andrew Allen (1993) observes in his
discussion of the history of the PIE *-sk- sux that the derivational sux -sc-,
which signalled inchoativity in Latin, subsequently lost its ingressive meaning
and developed into an inectional sux in some of its daughter languages. In
Italian, for example, -isc- has become part of an irregular conjugation which uses
the sux in forms like nisco I nish, which has an unstressed personal
ending, but not in the rst person plural niamo we nish or the second person
plural nito you nish, which have stressed personal endings (Allen 1993: 5).
An even more relevant example here is Allens story of the verb cepi I began,
from Classical Latin coepi. Allen cites a study by Bechtel (1902), who provides
evidence from a fth-century manuscript, the Peregrinatio Egeriae, that this verb
lost its lexical ingressive meaning in this particular variety of Latin and became
an auxiliary of the perfect, a development absolutely parallel to what happened
to Old English onginnan + bare innitive. A similar development took place in
the Old French verb commencier begin, which in some thirteenth-century Old
French translations from Latin clearly serves as a durative past tense auxiliary
(Allen 1993: 5, drawing on Beer 1974: 4348), as simple past tense forms in the
Latin source text emerge in the translation as a form of commencier plus the
innitive.
Why aspectualizers in particular are prone to grammaticalization is a
dicult question. In the case of onginnan/beginnan it might be possible to
connect the process to the fact that these verbs are particularly frequent in
narrative texts, and it is conceivable that they acquired a particular discourse
function of their own. Studies of the rise and fall of various discourse markers
suggest that they are transient, ephemeral entities, particularly susceptible to
change (e.g Stein 1985: 300). Any element used as a device to arouse the interest
of an audience by creating suspense in some way is prone to rapid devaluation
through overuse; and this may also have been the case with onginnan/beginnan
+bare innitive.
How far had this process progressed in lfrics time? It is striking that
onginnan in clause-initial position, i.e. in a V1 conguration, is robustly attested
with the bare innitive in Old English poetry (48 times) but only once in lfric,
who tends to use the to-innitive with V1 congurations instead. This makes it
likely that the to-innitive, which originally represented a non-nite alternant of
the subjunctive that-clause, had stepped in by frics time to restore the
ingressive meaning of onginnan/beginnan, with the bare innitive after these
verbs reserved for signalling that the action it describes progresses to the coda of
the event.
4
7. Conclusion
This paper argues that the Old English verbs onginnan and beginnan, both
originally meaning begin, show auxiliary behaviour in the works of lfric
when governing a bare innitive:
like the modals, they can either follow or precede the matrix verb;
like the modals, they are transparent to the argument structure of e.g.
impersonal verbs, as if they had no argument structure of their own.
We further noted that they rarely occur in a V1 construction when governing a
bare innitive, and that this is due to the fact that the events referred to by a
bare innitive are not temporally segmentable and are therefore never interrupt-
ed. Onginnan and beginnan as auxiliaries show semantic bleaching in that they
have lost their original inchoative meaning in the bare innitive construction.
When onginnan and beginnan are followed by a to-innitive, they express
ingression, and refer to a temporally segmentable, interruptable event; this
explains their compatibility with the V1 word order, which signals a thematic
discontinuity. We conclude that bare and to-innitives after these verbs are not
in free variation in lfrics prose, but carefully selected.
272 BETTELOU LOS
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this article was made possible by a grant from the Netherlands Organization
for Scientic Research (NWO), grant number 30074021. The author gratefully acknowledges
helpful hints and comments from Olga Fischer, Ans van Kemenade, Anthony Kroch and Evert
Wattel, and would also like to thank the editors of this volume and an anonymous referee.
Notes
1. Throughout this article, the reference to an Old English text is enclosed in and follows the
system of short titles as employed in Healey and Venezky (1985) (in turn based on the system
of Mitchell, Ball and Cameron 1975, 1979).
2. Note that these gures are higher than those given above. The reason is that fewer texts are
attributed to lfric today than in Callaways time.
3. This example also occurs in Funke (1922: 9). He, too, interprets this case as an instance of
bleaching. He translates: Frwahr nichts vollfhrten sie im Himmel auer gute und gerechte Taten,
bis (Indeed, they did not perform anything in Heaven but good and just deeds, until ).
4. For the idea that to-innitives and subjunctive that-clauses are rival structures, see Fischer
(1996), Los (1998), Los (1999).
References
Allen, A. 1993. Regrammaticalization and degrammaticalization of the inchoative
sux. In Historical Linguistics 1991, H. Andersen (ed.), 18. Amsterdam/
Allen, C. L. 1992. Old English and the syntactician: Some remarks and a syntacticians
guide to editions of the works of lfric. In Evidence for Old English [Edinburgh
Studies in the English language 2], F. Colman (ed.), 119. Edinburgh: John Donald.
Bechtel, E. A. 1902. Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio. Studies in Classical Philology, vol. VI.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beer, J. 1974. Traces of a durative use of comencier +innitive in 13th-century French.
Romance Philology 28: 4348.
Bock, H. 1931. Studien zum prpositionalen Innitiv und Akkusativ mit dem
to-Innitiv. Anglia 55: 115249.
Brinton, L. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-
verbal Particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, L. 1990. The stylistic function of Middle English gan reconsidered. In Papers
from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics [Current
Issues in Linguistic Theory 65], S. Adamson, V. Law, N. Vincent and S. Wright
(eds), 3153. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brinton, L. 1993. Episode boundary markers in Old English discourse. In Historical
Linguistics 1989: Papers from the 9th Conference on Historical Linguistics [Current
Issues in Linguistic Theory 106], H. Aertsen and R. J. Jeers (eds), 7389. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Callaway, M. 1913. The Innitive in Anglo-Saxon. Washington DC: Carnegie Institution
of Washington.
Denison, D. 1990. Auxiliary+impersonal in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica IX
(1): 139166.
Einenkel, E. 1891. Der Innitiv im Mittelenglischen. Anglia 13: 79104.
Enkvist, N. E. 1986. More about the textual functions of the Old English adverbial a.
In Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: In honour of Jacek
Fisiak on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday, vol. 1, D. Kastovsky and A. Szwedek
(eds), 301309. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1995. The distinction between to and bare innitival complements in
late Middle English. Diachronica XII (1): 130.
Fischer, O. C. M. 1996. Verbal complementation in early Middle English: How do the
innitives t in? In English Historical Linguistics 1994, D. Britton (ed.), 247270.
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Freed, A. F. 1979. The Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation. Dordrecht/
London: D. Reidel.
Funke, O. 1922. Die Fgung Ginnen mit dem Innitiv im Mittelenglischen. Englische
Studien 56: 127.
Haspelmath, M. 1996. Word-class-changing inection and morphological theory. In
Yearbook of Morphology 1995, G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds), 4366. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Healey, A. D. and Venezky, R. L. 1985. A Microche Concordance to Old English.
Toronto: The Pontical Institute of Mediaeval Studies [1980].
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hnnemeyer, F. (eds). 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual
Hoekstra, T. and van der Putten, F. 1988. Inheritance phenomena. In Morphology and
Modularity, M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybregts and M. Trommelen (eds),
163186. Dordrecht: Foris
Hopper, P. J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Syntax and Semantics 12:
Discourse and Syntax, T. Givn (ed.), 213241. New York: Academic Press.
Kiparsky, P. 1995. The Indo-European origin of Germanic syntax. In Clause Structure
and Language Change, A. Battye and I. Roberts (eds), 140169. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Koopman, W. 1990. Word Order in Old English. Ph. D. dissertation, University of
Amsterdam.
Koopman, W. 1992. Old English clitic pronouns. Some remarks. In Evidence for Old
English [Edinburgh Studies in the English language 2], F. Colman (ed.), 4487.
Edinburgh: John Donald.
274 BETTELOU LOS
Los, B. 1998. The rise of the to-innitive as verb complement. English Language and
Linguistics 2: 136.
Los, B. 1999. Innitival Complementation in Old and Middle English [LOT dissertations
Series 31]. The Hague: Thesus.
Meillet, A. 1948. Lvolution des formes grammaticales. In Linguistique Historique et
Linguistique Gnrale, A. Meillet, 130148. Paris: Champion [1912].
Mitchell, B., Ball, C. and Cameron, A. (eds). 1975. Short titles of Old English texts.
Anglo-Saxon England 4: 207221.
Mitchell, B., Ball, C. and Cameron, A. (eds). 1979. Addenda and corrigenda. Anglo-
Saxon England 8: 331333.
Moss, F. 1938. Histoire de la Forme Priphrastique tre + Participe Prsent en
Germanique, vol I, Paris: Klincksieck.
Mustanoja, T. F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax, part I. Helsinki: Socit Nophilologique.
Pope, J. C. (ed.). 1967. lfrics Homilies: A Supplementary Collection, 2 vols. EETS 259,
260. London: Oxford University Press.
Riggert, G. 1909. Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Innitivs in der altenglischen Poesie.
Inaugural Dissertation der Kniglichen Christian-Albrechts-Universitt, Kiel.
Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. J. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences,
second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stein, D. 1985. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Papers from the 4th
International Conference on English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in
Linguistic Theory 41], R. Eaton, O. Fischer, W. Koopman and F. van der Leek
Stockwell, R. P. 1977. Motivations for exbraciation in Old English. In Mechanisms of
Syntactic Change, C. N. Li (ed.), 291314. London/Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Stockwell, R. P. and Minkova, D. 1990. Verb phrase conjunction in Old English. In
Historical Linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on
Historical Linguistics, H. Andersen (ed.), 499515. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Thrinsson, H. 1985. V1, V2 and V3 in Icelandic. In Verb Second Phenomena in
Germanic Languages, H. Haider and M. Prinzhorn (eds), 169194. Dordrecht: Foris.
Turville-Petre, J. 1974. The Narrative Style in Old English. In Iceland and the
Mediaeval World: Studies in Honour of Ian Maxwell, G. Turville-Petre and J. S.
Martin (eds), 116125. Victoria, Australia: Wilke & Company.
Warner, A. R. 1992. Elliptical and impersonal constructions: Evidence for auxiliaries in
Old English. In Evidence for Old English [Edinburgh Studies in the English
Language 2], F. Colman (ed.), 178210. Edinburgh: John Donald.
Wilbur, T. H. 1988. Sentence connectives in ancient Germanic texts. In Germania:
Comparative Studies in the Old Germanic Languages and Literatures, D. G. Calder
and T. C. Christy (eds), 8595. Wolfeboro, New Hampshire: Brewer.
Some suggestions for explaining the origin and
development of the denite article in English
University of Aberdeen
1. Introduction
One of the most central items in the functional inventory of the English noun
phrase is the denite article the. So central is it, in fact, that it is impossible for
most native speakers of the language to imagine what it would be like for there
not to be what is (for us) an important indeed essential aid to our under-
standing of the world. Yet there are languages spoken in Europe today which
have no such functional category. Some of these such as Finnish are not
related to English; others, such as the majority of the Slavonic languages are, if
at something of a remove. When a Russian speaker is learning English, he or she
is faced with a whole functional grouping which to him or her makes no sense
indeed is highly superuous. Yet that does not mean that Russian has no
semantic category of deniteness; merely that it does not feel the need to create
a single functional niche to express these ideas.
Underlying this dichotomy is the fact that all the Indo-European languages
which have a denite article (including English) have developed this during their
history. In that sense Russian is actually closer to the Indo-European archetype
in having no such overt distinction. In this essay I will suggest reasons behind
the development of the denite article in English, compare these to developments
in other languages, and nally suggest a rather heretical conclusion: that English
has an overt, largely single-function discrete form the not so much because the
language felt an overwhelming need for such a form, but rather because a gap
had opened in the semantic fabric of the language due to the specialisation in
meaning of that. The is, in other words, an historical accident.
276 ROBERT MCCOLL MILLAR
2. The overt expression of deniteness: Some views on its development
As was said in the above, all languages must have an inherent sense of denite-
ness. Without this concept, it is practically impossible to imagine a language
functioning. There is, of course, some variation over what types of deniteness
are necessary for a given language, but that does not disprove the general point.
Why therefore should some languages develop the overt expression of this
distinction, whilst others do not?
In his seminal study of the English denite article, Christophersen suggests
(1939: 20) that languages develop denite articles because they shift along the
typological continuum from synthetic to analytic. In other words, the morpho-
syntactic material which supplied these distinctions without the provision of an
article is rendered obsolete and redundant, thus bringing about the development
of an overt expression of deixis. We do see evidence of this kind of develop-
ment. If we look at the Romance languages today, all of them have a discrete
dener of some sort or other (whether this be a preposed particle or a postposed
enclitic particle). Latin, whilst occasionally employing its demonstrative pronouns
in situations where its daughters would use such a dener, had no such discrete
form. What splits the two stages in the languages history is a move from a
synthetic structure towards an analytic one in all the dialects.
1
The same must
surely, it would be argued, be the case for English.
Despite its being attractive at rst glance, there are a number of problems
with accepting such a position at surface level, however. If we look at languages
such as Greek, or the Scandinavian dialects, we can see that they developed
dedicated deners before they shifted along the synthetic to analytic continuum.
By the same token, there are languages such as Farsi which have also lost all but
the smallest vestiges of grammatical gender and case, but have not developed a
denite article. At the same time, there are languages such as Modern High
German which appear to be stalled somewhere along the line between being
typologically synthetic and being analytic and also having no dedicated dener
and having one (of which more in the following). The situation cannot be as
clear-cut as Christophersen appears to think.
More promising, perhaps, are those views put forward by scholars interested
in the various processes of grammaticalisation. In his 1997 study, Nikolaus P.
Himmelmann puts forward a scheme for the cline of development of a denite
article, basing his description upon the earlier work of Greenberg (1978)
2
and
that of Lehmann (1982):
THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEFINITE ARTICLE 277
bric1ic i:1icir + c:1rcoi:i NocN brxoNs1:1ivr ioNocN
brxoNs1:1ivr br1rxiNr vr:xix brxoNs1:1ivr brriNi1r
br1rxiNr brriNi1r :1icir :rrix:i :1icir NocN x:xr
(Himmelmann 1997: 23).
According to this view, a denite article develops as part of a greater process of
re-designation of purpose of morphological components within a system. As a
brief aside, we can see that whilst English has reached either the weakly
demonstrative denite determiner or perhaps even the denite article stage in
the pattern, the Scandinavian article is actually closer to either the axal
article or noun marker stage. Native speakers of Danish, for instance, (and,
indeed, native grammars) seem to consider the form manden the man to be the
denite form of the noun (although they have no problem applying this rule on
denite nature to their use of the English article). German, on the other hand, is
at most at the demonstrative determiner stage.
But whilst much of this appears highly reasonable in its discussion of the
process of article formation, it does not really explain why the process should
have been initiated in the rst place.
3. Previous suggestions for the development of the denite article
in English
In most standard historical grammars and histories of the English language the
development of the denite article is glossed over as if it were an inevitable
development which, as I have already suggested, is how it would appear to a
native speaker of Modern English. As we have seen, such a view is not tenable.
At most, many scholars see the development as being due to the replacement of
the original demonstrative system by the use of uninected forms such as the,
that and this. As early as 1882, Koch suggested that the development could be
seen as part of a process where (1882: 475), [n]eben den exionen kmmt das
abgeschliene e vor. The logical leaps that are required by such a view will
be dealt with below. Some other scholars particularly (although not exclusively)
those from a German-speaking background have seen the birth and growth of
the overt expression of deniteness as being a long drawn-out process involving
a number of developments.
3.1 The adjective paradigms
According to this view, both the Germanic dialects and the contiguous Baltic and
Slavonic dialects exhibit (or historically have exhibited) evidence of a split
between those adjectives which are preceded by a determiner of some form and
those which stand on their own without a preceding determiner (Kramsky
1972: 179183). In the modern Germanic dialects which have maintained this
distinction the former declension is referred to as the weak adjectives, the latter
as strong adjectives.
Some scholars (most notably Heinrichs [1954: 52.]) have contended that
underlying this distinction is an early form of overt determiner. It is their
suggestion that the weak adjectives originally had some elements of deictic Kraft,
whilst the strong adjectives were originally lacking in such force. Over time, this
overt relationship with a dener function was lessened by phonetic attrition the
weakening of syllables at the end of the word due to the forces of, among other
things, elision. Nevertheless, the old relationship is still present in the way in
which the modern Germanic determiners are attracted towards the weak adjec-
tives. It may be the case that this relationship was originally developed to
support the teetering weak adjective as determiner system as described above, in
order to make certain that there was deixis in the expression. If that is the case,
then as a saving mechanism, an attempt to maintain the central point of the
distinction, it was bound to fail. This, along with a wide variety of other attempts
at partial retention, might be described as conservative radicalism. As with
other examples of this type, it was bound to fail because the sacrice of one part of
a system inevitably leads to excess pressure upon another and the gradual shift of a
grammatical feature from the centre of a system to its periphery (Vachek 1980: 373).
3.2 The simple demonstrative pronoun
Many European languages have based their denite article on a part of their
distal demonstrative. There are exceptions to this. The Scandinavian dialects,
whilst having a distal simple demonstrative pronoun, use what was originally
part of their third person pronoun, thus
(1) Modern Danish huset the house, det hus that house.
As a general rule, however, we can see that there is a semantic connection
between the and that. Indeed in English (as in other languages) the two forms
derive from the same source.
From around the sixth century on, all of the West Germanic languages
began to use their distal simple demonstrative in functional and semantic slots
which nowadays we would associate with the denite article. This does not mean
to say that these languages developed a denite article; only that the function-
al/semantic zone was rendered active (or perhaps re-activated after the ambigui-
sation of the original weak adjective determiner). We can see the prevalence of
this usage spreading in all the West Germanic dialects. For instance, in the case
of English, a poetic and probably early text such as Beowulf has considerably
fewer examples of the new article use of the distal demonstrative than do later
prose texts such as the works of lfric (Christophersen 1939: 86; Micillo 1982).
Many scholars have been tempted to see in these developments the birth of
the denite article. They point to article function and then to demonstrative
function with forms from the same paradigm and believe that in this functional
variety lies the seeds of the formal split. There is a certain circularity of argu-
ment in this; it is also illogical to suggest that because there are semantic
distinctions, these must cause ssures within a paradigm.
Bruce Mitchell has described (1985: I, 133) the search for a denite article
in classical Old English as a terminological will o the wisp . Quirk and
Wrenn (1955: 69) said:
It must be emphasised that until the very close of the Old English period se
(rarely e until very late) was simply an inectional variant of t, in comple-
mentary distribution with it as Mod.E. the is with that. The existence of a
denite article in Old English is a vexed question, but it seems to be one
which has been raised largely by our desire to impose upon OE a terminology
familiar in and suitable for Mod.E.. Where today we have three contrastive and
formally distinct dening words, the, that, this, each with a name, in Old
English there was but two, se and es, and we are left, as it were, with a name
to spare. The problem partly disappears when we reect that in many instances
of their use today, the and that are interchangeable .
This problem is not helped by the fact that German-speaking scholars, whose
system is essentially still the one described here (with minor modications),
often see the very real semantic distinction between their article and einfach
Demonstrativpronomen as being a formal distinction, when this is not the case.
Old English, and for that matter Modern High German,
3
does not have an article
in the way that Modern English (or French, or Danish) has. Instead they have
demonstrative pronouns which exhibit near-article function. All that we can
really say is that in the development of a dener function for the distal, simple
demonstrative, the semantic seeds for the later formal split were laid.
3.3 Purdy (1973)
Where, therefore did this distinction come from? There have been a number of
attempts in recent years to explain this process; as we will see, however, not all
of what was claimed has been entirely correct or successfully argued. In his 1973
article, Did Old English have a denite article?, D.W. Purdy argued that whilst
Old English did not have an article per se, it had developed a vacuum in its
pronominal and determiner systems which cried out to be lled by what eventu-
ally became our denite article.
He claims correctly that there is considerable correspondence between the
pronoun and determiner categories in Old English (Purdy 1973: 121). He points
out further that this correspondence breaks down when it comes to the relation-
ship between se (the determiner) and he/heo/hit (the pronoun), claiming that there
are a number of occasions when the use of one does not necessarily imply the
use of the other.
In general these exceptions can be seen as being largely the preserve of se:
(a) its use as a relative pronoun; (b) its direct contrast to es and the remainder
of the compound demonstrative pronoun paradigm, and (c) as a determiner
(Purdy 1973: 123). It is this third distinction upon which he concentrates, and it
is on this occasion that his argument falls down.
His argument is as follows. He points out (quite correctly) that there is a
lacuna in Modern English in terms of correspondence between determiners and
pronouns, since whilst it is entirely possible and correct to represent essentially
the same meaning with either That is a man or He is a man and That is a woman
and She is a woman, there is no exact correspondent to That is a tree (*It is a tree
is not possible in these contexts). Here his argument becomes highly question-
able, since he claims (Purdy 1973: 123) that precisely the same distinction may
have existed in OE, but we have no way of telling since it involves the whole
speech act. The rest of his argument is based upon this highly shaky foundation.
Purdy (1973: 123) continues the tentative argument by saying:
We can say then that it, when used as the subject of a sentence accompanying
a pointing gesture, is unacceptable [in Modern English]. This could also have
been the case in OE, since hit was early chosen to refer to abstract non-
pointable-at-things like the time and the weather, and it was also used as the
dummy subject after extraposition had taken place.
This is somewhat spurious logic. Nevertheless he tentatively extrapolates a
fourth rule from this of a semantic position where se and he could not both
occur (Purdy 1973: 123): as neuter subject of sentences involving a pointing
gesture only t could occur. This split between the two paradigms in
semantic terms, the vacuum that this developed, and the subsequent develop-
ment of a denite article to ll the slot (partially, although he does not discuss
this) were rendered inevitable by (Purdy 1973: 123) the upheaval and instability
which followed the Norman Conquest.
This article is centred on a circular logic also noticed by Mitchell who states
that (Mitchell 1985: I, 133, note 87) [h]is suggestion that OE nevertheless had
a semantic/grammatical void which was very susceptible to being lled by a
denite article is no doubt supported by the fact that English did develop the
denite article. We can see this circular argumentation most markedly in
Purdys back-reference of usage patterns from the present-day to that of nearly
a thousand years before as if they were truly equivalent, and as if we could say
that because the usage described is a grammatical necessity now, this must have
been the case at an earlier stage in the languages development. This stability is
in marked contrast to the ux which he describes for other parts of the para-
digms at the same time.
The article also makes a number of errors in the structure of its analysis.
Firstly, it appears to accept Ross neutralisation hypothesis (Ross 1936) for the
development of an independent that (see 5 below). Whilst Purdy is correct in
assuming that there was a correspondence between the use of hit and inanimate
objects (even when of a dierent surface grammatical gender), it is wrong to
extrapolate immediately from this that the semantic specialisation of that
has come about as a result of this development.
Further, along with many other scholars who deal with English alone, Purdy
has under-estimated (or, indeed, ignored) what has happened in other languages.
It is very easy to point out parallels between the semantic developments dis-
cussed here and those put forward for other Germanic languages such as
German. German has exactly the same vacuum in the relationship between
determiners and pronouns; nevertheless its speakers have never felt the need to
develop a system like that of English. On the other hand the Scandinavian
languages have developed a usage very similar in semantic import to that found
in English. There is no evidence that any tension along the lines of those
postulated by Purdy was ever felt there. Whilst it is true that separate languages
can (and do) have dierent means of development, developments in cognate
languages should not be ignored in this way.
The many mis-statements and misinterpretations found within this article are
particularly galling because Purdy may well be on the edge of understanding
something fundamental to what is discussed here: there was a fundamental aw
in the structure of the demonstrative system of Old English as it entered the
transition period, one which was exploited by other forces (both intra- and
extra-systemic) to create a new system from the old.
3.4 Spamer 1979
The most important attempt in recent years to explain the development of the
denite article is to be found in Spamers 1979 article, The development of the
denite article in English; a case study of syntactic change. He suggests in this
that the nal ssure of the denite article from the rest of the simple demonstra-
tive paradigm derives from the breakdown in the Middle English period of the
distinction between strong and weak adjectives. He bases his ideas primarily
upon the contention that this distinction is not, as is usually considered, one
merely between dierent morphological classes of adjectives, but rather repre-
sents the remnants of a distinction between two word-classes: adjuncts (as part
of a compound with the head noun) and adjectives.
He begins his analysis by pointing out that there is a striking dierence
between the Modern English and Old English noun phrase. In Modern English
there are two potentially recursive elements: adjectives, for example
(2) the happy man (Spamer 1979: 242)
and adjuncts, for example
(3) stone wall (Spamer 1979: 242).
But the Old English has only one recursive element, the adjuncts. In Old
English, the adjectives were non-recursive: each head noun could have at most
only one adjective preceding it (Spamer 1979: 243), thus producing what to
speakers of present-day English seem to be rather long-winded turns of phrase,
for example:
(4) t hi nfre r swa clne gold, ne swa read ne gesawon
that they had never before seen such pure gold, nor such red
[gold] (Spamer 1979: 244).
He further points out that Old English syntax is in conict with that of Modern
English when it comes to the manner in which a series of adjectives can be laid
out. In Modern English it is perfectly possible to have adjectives following each
other, for example
(5) They had never before seen such pure red gold.
In Old English each adjective almost invariably must be followed by and
(1979: 244).
Spamer says that (1979: 246):
the traditional classication of adjectival endings as strong and weak
in Germanic philology is actually based on a misconception. There are not two
inectional systems for adjectives at all. There is simply the adjectival
declension, the traditional strong one, and there is the adjunct declension, the
traditional weak one. The adjuncts would originally have been combinatives,
and the surface structure of an adjective with a strong ending followed by
adjectives with weak endings would have derived from what was dia-
chronically a single adjective followed by a compound.
From this Spamer extrapolates that there were really only two classes of words
in Old English which could precede a head noun in a noun phrase: modiers (on
this occasion, adjectives) and adjuncts. As we have seen, he classies what are
traditionally termed weak adjectives as adjuncts. By the same token he
classies the strong adjectives and the demonstrative pronoun (among other
modiers) as being highly similar if not identical in function (1979: 246): The
demonstrative and the adjective function in the same way in the noun phrase:
they take essentially the same endings (in contrast to the adjuncts), they occupy
the same initial position, and the use of one precludes the use of the other.
From this he postulates that there is an underlying phrasal structure along the
lines of
(6) [modier] +[adjunct] +[head noun]
inherent, although not necessarily realised, in all Old English noun phrases.
Bearing this in mind, it would appear logical that only one modier can be used
in each phrase, whether such a modier is a strong adjective or a demonstrative
pronoun. This is a particularly ingenious solution because it overturns the
traditional view of what lies behind the use of strong or weak adjectival forms:
that they are triggered by the use or non-use of a determiner with a noun phrase
(Campbell 1959: 638).
Continuing this line of logic, it becomes apparent that if what he terms the
adjective declension (in other words, the strong declension) and the determiner
declensions are both modiers, then the demonstrative pronouns can also be seen
as at least in morphological and functional terms adjectives (1979: 247).
From this, according to Spamer, we can extrapolate a reason behind the split in
the Old English se paradigm, the simple demonstrative. As long as the
strong/weak distinction was maintained with the adjective, there was no reason
for the essentially adjectival nature of the demonstrative to be emphasised and
rendered critical. However, according to Spamer, as the morphological break-
down of word classes continued apace in the Middle English period, a distinction
between the adjunct class (the weak adjectival declension) and the original
adjective class (the strong adjectival declension) was no longer possible
(Spamer 1979: 248: [a]s a result, adjectives in English become recursive).
As Spamer himself admits, there is a problem with this reasoning: if the
demonstrative itself is essentially a specialised adjective, and if adjectives
become recursive, there is nothing to block the surface order represented by *old
the man (Spamer 1979: 248). To get round this problem Spamer suggests that
there has been a fundamental change in the deep structure interpretation of the
noun phrase and that (Spamer 1979: 248), Middle English speakers would
have realised that the had to occur initially and could not be repeated in the same
noun phrase, [and] they would have naturally concluded that the belonged to a
form class dierent from that which included adjectives. In a word, they would
have concluded that the was an article.
3.5 Some objections to Spamers ideas
It is not possible to accept Spamers ndings as the sole explanation for the
development of a denite article in English.
The rst, and most important, problem with Spamers explanation is his
nal point: that speakers would have reinterpreted the as an article. It is dicult
to see why the processes that he is discussing should have brought this about.
Nowhere in his article is an attempt made to explain the split between the and
that, the latter originally also deriving from the simple demonstrative paradigm.
Why would speakers at the time have made a distinction between these two
forms when they did not make one between the various forms of the compound
demonstrative paradigm, equally under pressure from grammatical breakdown?
There must be other reasons behind the morphological developments discussed.
Moreover, the connection postulated between the complete breakdown of the
strong and weak adjective systems and the development of a denite article is
not as straightforward as Spamer appears to believe. Whilst it would be wrong
to claim that there is no connection between the two, this connection cannot have
been intrinsic. Michael Samuels has shown that the London English of Chaucers
time had retained for at least some, more conservative, speakers some
remnants of the old distinctions between strong and weak adjectives (Samuels
1989a; see also Elliott 1974: 55) Yet the tripartite system of the, that and this
was in full use in just these dialects in a manner very close if not entirely
identical to that found in English today (Kerkhof 1982: 662).
Spamer has also not thought to compare his ndings with those for other
languages. When we do so, it becomes apparent that while his analysis may be
applied to some, such as Dutch, there are others, such as the North Germanic
dialects, which had a fully developed article system albeit from a dierent
source at a time when they also had a highly complex synthetic morphology.
There cannot be the one-to-one correspondence he suggests between grammatical
simplication and the growth of an article, even if we have the suspicion that
just such simplication does encourage the development of an article system in
a wide range of languages (Christophersen 1939: 20).
Despite Spamers articles importance in terms of our understanding of the
development, we must therefore say that it only adds some pieces to the puzzle.
What it might suggest is an explanation for the nal stabilisation of the new
tripartite system due to his postulated deep structure reinterpretation of one part
of the original adjective declension. But the reason for the split between the
and that is no clearer after reading his article than it was before.
4. Developments in the demonstrative paradigms
Up to this point mention of the demonstrative pronoun paradigms and the
directions in which they developed during the period under discussion has been
avoided. As we might expect, both simple demonstrative pronouns (the semantic
ancestors of Modern English that) and compound demonstrative pronouns went
through the same morphological levelling which all the inherited paradigms went
through.
4
Thus, while in Old English, there was a near one-to-one correspon-
dence between a single form and a case/gender slot, Modern English has
replaced this with a relationship based largely upon a single (or highly circum-
scribed) form/all function relationship.
It would be convenient to see this as the replacement of many forms by one
radical form. Indeed such a view is embraced by a great many scholars, albeit
not always in a systematic way.
5
But when we look at the developments involved
in this we can see that there are certain general tendencies at play over a
relatively lengthy historical period which have caused these developments to come
about. They might all be grouped together as phonological attacks upon the system.
4.1 Ambiguity in ending
One of the most central of these is what might be termed ambiguity in ending.
A number of the forms in both inherited demonstrative paradigms carried their
functional information embedded in the ending. Thus the simple demonstrative
form re (dative feminine singular) is only distinguished from the form m
(dative masculine/neuter singular and dative plural) by their respective endings.
As ambiguity grew over what certain endings represented, and these very endings
were attacked by the forces of phonetic attrition (both processes part of the
developments central to the transition period between Old and Middle English),
it is inevitable that problems would be encountered in maintaining both the
external formal and the underlying functional distinctiveness. This would
particularly be the case where it was only one vowel that separated the two (or
more) forms.
For instance, the form m and the form one (accusative masculine)
inhabit similar functional areas particularly in prepositional position where
semantic distinctions are sometimes not great between the cases and are
dierentiated largely by the -e ending (m and n are given to variation in most
languages, and there is considerable variation in both root vowels throughout the
Old English period). When endings are under attack as they were at the end of
the Old English period, it is not surprising that the two forms should fall together
at Vn (Blake 1994: 6.3).
Many scholars (Krner 1888: 58; Seidler 1901: 2325, 32; Landwehr
1911: 1011; Pervaz 1958: 127128; dArdenne 1961: 92, among others) have
suggested that this took place rst in hiatus position. Indeed we do nd examples
of this type of phenomena in texts from the period:
(7) a. Vices and Virtues (late twelfth century) 13/301
ewiss haf godd forworpen an ilche man
Indeed God has cast out that very man
b. Owl and the Nightingale (mid-thirteenth century) 7412 C
an bidde at hi moten iseche / an ilche sang at euer is eche
and bid that he must seek out that very song which ever is
eternal.
These are, however, often outweighed by examples of this type of variation
where the form in question is followed by a consonant:
(8) a. Peterborough Chronicle First Continuation 1123/41
he sde one kyng et hit ws togeanes riht
and he told the king that it was against right
b. Laamon (later thirteenth century) 1359 O
ohte Gorgwind ane king
it seemed to the king Gorgwind.
How can we reconcile these two apparently divergent tendencies? In her recent
book, Donka Minkova has argued that hiatus is not in itself a sucient reason
for a development of this type (1991: 164):
Avoidance of hiatus is a very unenlightening characterization of the causation of
early schwa loss. There is no evidence in English, at any point in its history, of any
phonotactic constraint on hiatus, word internally or across word boundaries.
Nor is there any universal, or even a tendency, for languages to disallow
hiatus; in fact languages with and without hiatus are about evenly distributed.
It is dicult to see how we can accept everything that she says here at face
value. In fact, present day non-rhotic dialects of English do evince a considerable
degree of hiatus avoidance in their use of /r/ before vowels across word bound-
aries in phrases such as
(9) law and order.
6
Having said that, there can be little doubt that what she says here is grounded in
the truth. There is no immediate connection in most examples between the loss
of -e and hiatus. It might be argued that the hiatus phenomenon development was
expressed rst in speech, and that it had already spread into other non-hiatus
contexts by the time it entered the considerably more conservative written form,
a form which, as we know, was profoundly inuenced for a considerable period
of the early Middle English period, by Anglo-Saxon models (Millar and Nicholls
1997).
7
Whilst there is every likelihood that this is the case, it might be argued
that beyond this is a general tendency to treat nal vowel endings as being less
meaningful than would previously have been the case. For instance, in the late
twelfth century MS BL Cotton Vespasian A. xxii text of lfrics De Initio
Creaturae,
8
there is much evidence of misuse or non-use of endings, such as
(10) buton elce eorlice federe
without any earthly father
where the archetype has
(11) buton lcum eorlicum fder.
9
This would particularly be the case with the use of pronouns, which are not
always stressed within a phrase. Minkova suggests (1991: 128129) that their
[pronouns] position in the sentence would not allow them to occupy a prominent
position in the hierarchy of prosodic salience; these pronouns will be mere
prosodic clitics when they appear within the noun phrase.
Such a position would inevitably lead in these circumstances to a situation
where, as Minkova notes (1991: 162), the W terminal node [will be] dominated
by a higher W node , that in itself can be a sucient condition for schwa
deletion.
In fact what appears to have taken place is a staggered, staged development,
bearing in mind the proviso that, as we have seen, there may be more than one
stage present in a given text (if not necessarily in a speakers idiolect) at the
same time. Thus a speaker might not regularly have used a given ending or form
in speech, but understood (to some extent at least) what the functional implica-
tions of its use might be when using it in the written form. By the same token
this understanding might only be fragmentary (particularly if the persons
knowledge of the usage is largely a passive, reading knowledge).
That this ambiguity is highly prevalent can be seen in the way in which
variation can be found within texts that have more than one manuscript witness,
for example:
(12) Katerine (late twelfth century)
B 4334 he bichearde ene feont ant schrencte en alde deouel
R 5478 he bi-cherde ene feont. and schrencte en alde deouel
T 8012 he bicherde ene feond. schrencte en alde deouel
he deceived the end and tricked the old devil.
The consistency, if we can talk in such terms, of the confusion should also be
noted on this occasion. This is not an example of a single idiolects idiosyncrasy.
On the contrary, it demonstrates how widespread the variation must have been.
Indeed, in her edition of Seinte Iuliene, dArdenne went so far as to suggest
(dArdenne 1961: 92) that ene, a relatively rare form in texts of the AB
grouping, should probably be regarded as a longer variant of en, and not as
especially accusative in nature. Pervaz echoes these sentiments, suggesting that
in the South English Legendary the -ne form (Pervaz 1958: 109) is probably the
longer variant of a generalized dative form .
10
In his Grammatical Gender in English: 9501250, Charles Jones suggested
an alternative scenario for these developments. He suggests that (in between the
complete application of the classical West Saxon case/gender system, and the
morphology-free system found in most dialects from the early Middle English
period on) there was a brief period probably only a few generations per dialect,
although he does not dene this where the original case and gender sensitive
materials were employed for a similar, but not identical, functional purpose.
He suggests that the -ne ending associated with accusative case contexts in
classical Old English became associated in texts such as the Peterborough
Chronicle First Continuation and Interpolations and the Caligula text in particular
of Laamons Brut with two functions not identied with the inherited surface
case structure, but rather with functions as dened in John Andersons On Case
Grammar (1977). In essence these two contexts can be dened as :nsoic1ivr
case and in ioc:1ivr contexts where the phrase in question has intrinsically
oriented directional properties.
The former, as found in examples such as,
(13) Peterborough Chronicle First Continuation 1125/89
a benam man an an benm lc one riht hand
and took each one by one and removed their right hand,
is a means by which we might explain non-historical gender-association.
According to Jones (1988: 4.5), an example such as the Vne form is being
produced to reect the neutral, :nsoic1ivr case relationship of those argu-
ments which they modify bear to the sentential relationship. There is little
which can be said against such a proposition save that, as we will see in the
concluding portion of this section, these new usages of Vne are often in
variation with V forms which represent exactly the same contexts. In many of
the later texts discussed in this essay, V forms have almost entirely replaced
Vne. The sub-system Jones postulates was too fragile to survive.
The latter is particularly useful in explaining the apparent confusion between
accusative and dative forms discussed above: accusative forms are moving
into dative functional zones in a non-haphazard manner. When speaking of the
First Continuation and Interpolations of the Peterborough Chronicle (1988:
4.6.c), Jones (1988: 4.6.c) discusses a number of contexts where a Vne form
is realised, but where classical Old English would regularly have demanded the
use of a Vm shape. Interestingly, most of these fall within a similar semantic
eld, for example:
(14) a. Peterborough First Continuation 1126/35
Mid him com se cwen his dohter et he ror hfde giuen one
kasere Heanri of Loherenge to wife
with him came the queen and his daughter whom he had
earlier given to the Emperor Henry of Lorraine as wife
b. Peterborough Chronicle First Continuation 1129/2526
Se kyng Henri geaf one biscoprice fter Michelesmesse one
abbot Henri his nefe
The king Henry gave the bishopric after Michaelmas to the
abbot Henry his nephew
In a complex argument, Jones claims that whilst the examples above demonstrate
a surface indirect object function, at a deeper level their :nsoic1ivr nature is
apparent. Essentially, his argument runs that when there is no left movement
with an indirect object, such as
(15) John gave Mary the book,
when the indirect object remains in far right position, for instance,
(16) John gave the book to Mary,
the indirect object takes on some of the semantic (and, it would appear on this
occasion, morphological) features of the direct object. He says (Jones 1988: 153) that:
[t]he semantic hallmark of the absolutive case relationship is completion,
exhaustiveness and that which is inherent in the semantic reference of the
sentential predicate In the types of sentence in the Peterborough Chronicle
The king gave the abbot the property we should like to claim that
not only do verbs like /give/ display an [absolutive] direct object lexical
specication (in this case the property) but they also manifest inherent
directionality: the act of giving assumes a locational goal (as well as a source,
as we shall see below). But, more importantly for our argument here, that
directionality itself has an iN1iNsic birc1ioN:i ioir1x; a goal-only
directional path. Predications like come and go, although likewise having
intrinsically directional status are nevertheless unspecied as to their
source/goal route. It is just that exhaustiveness of directional orientation which,
we suggest, supplies the [locational. Ergative] indirect object with an
absolutive relational property in /give/ predications. And that particular
property is signalled in these early Middle English data by the preposition-less
one attributive in noun phrases.
11
In his discussion of Laamons usage (Jones 1988: 5.2.b), he widens his
argument somewhat. He gives examples of civr phrases, such as
(17) Laamon (later thirteenth century) C
Saturnus heo iuen Stterdi ene sunne heo iuen Sonedi
they give Saturday to Saturn; they give Sunday to the Sun.
12
He suggests (1988: 182) that, Perhaps under this type too we might include
indirect objects arguments in construction with predicates like promise, citing
examples such as,
(18) Laamon (later thirteenth century) O
Hii bi-hehte Goare ane king at hii him wolde helpe
They promised Goar the king that they would help him
working, no doubt, on the idea that we could paraphrase the above as They gave
a promise to Goar the king that they would help him, thus implying that we
have here again a locational goal only context.
There might, in fact, be something in his argument; it certainly appears to
be suited to the examples that he gives. One problem that he does not address,
however, is the manner in which a native speaker would have analysed the two
Vne forms found in an example such as,
Se kyng Henri geaf one biscoprice fter Michelesmesse one abbot
Henri his nefe
The king Henry gave the bishopric after Michaelmas to the abbot
Henry his nephew.
The rst example of Vne would, according to Jones argument given above,
demonstrate the spread of a no longer gender sensitive form as a marker of
absolutive function. Yet it evidently serves a dierent function here from the
second, nearly contiguous example of Vne, at least at surface level. Even if we
accept that both function/form identications could occur at the same time, that
does not say much for the long-term health of the sub-system. In eect, what we
are seeing is merely a further variation on the theme of formal and functional
ambiguity discussed in this essay.
Jones goes on to discuss the use of Vne with prepositions in both textual
groupings mentioned. In the First Continuation and Interpolations of the Peter-
borough Chronicle, he cites examples such as,
es ilces geares com fram Ierusalem Hugo of e Temple to one kyng
on Normandig.
In this same year Hugo of the Temple came from Jerusalem to the
king in Normandy
and in Laamons Brut he cites examples such as,
(21) Laamon (later thirteenth century) C 164
heo hine emden out of ane londe
they chased him out of the land
as the basis for an argument for the use of Vne being conditioned by the
presence of a preposition expressing movement or directional motivation. In
comparing the previous phenomenon with this prepositional phenomenon,
he says (Jones 1988: 155):
While with the former we suggested that the ungoverned one attribute was
selected as a signal for the exhaustive, completive nature of ergative locatives
with an absolutive characteristic, in the latter it is its neutral, unspecied
participant function as a marker of case only which is manifested specic
locational information being provided by the particle serially preceding it.
It is dicult to know precisely what he means with case here, since it is
precisely this feature whether taken as the semantic function indicators he is
foregrounding in the book or the grammatical surface case which he claims
is being negated. In fact, what we have here is a reformulation of the dierences
between what van Kemenade (1987: 3.1.1.2.3) called oblique case (and
Homann (1909: 9293) and Pervaz (1958: 93) prepositional case) and struc-
tural case. Nevertheless, it is signicant that it should be the Vne form that is
preferred in these contexts without high functional sensitivity,
13
rather than Vm
and its descendants. This would suggest that Vne is developing new functions
which overstep former gender and case prerequisites.
But whilst many of these ideas have a degree of logic to them, they cannot
tell the whole story. The problem underlying the stability of the sub-system he
posits is variation. At the same time we can have, as we have seen, usage which
is morphologically very close to (if not identical with) the classical Old English
position, usage which appears to represent the system he posits, and usage which
is much closer to the Modern English position (in the sense that e is preferred
over all historical forms). The situation is much greyer, less clear-cut, than
Jones might like us to think. Indeed he himself has to admit that when dealing
with the admittedly morphologically eccentric Laamons Brut. When
dealing with material such as,
heo wolden an kinge wi-stonden
they wanted to withstand the king
Jones does concede (1988: 5.5) that an is being used in these contexts with
:nsoic1ivr case functions. He does verge on the idea that this demonstrates
the breakdown at least to some extent of the distinction, but claims instead
that the frequency levels for the variation in usage are too low for such a
distibution to be random. He (1988: 198) concludes:
One very tentative solution might be to argue for the existence in the Laamon
data of two separate attributive outputs. One of these, and the one with which
we are now familiar, would generalize the -ne accretion shape from an
original function of marking completive absolutive arguments to those other
environments where, in the presence of alternative signals for locational
direction [in other words, largely in prepositional position], case empty
attributive forms were seen to be appropriate. The other would take as its
model that determiner shape found increasingly intruding to the right of
directionally specic locational particles with nouns of all historical genders
an. That case neutral or case empty form could then be generalized to
non-locative absolutive slots.
Jones (1988: 199) admits himself that it is dicult to constrain such a tentative
proposal, although he does suggest some not entirely tenable distinctions
between the two usages, claiming that (1988: 199) the case neutral an type
has not intruded into those arguments whose directional characteristics are
inherent in the semantics of the predicates with which they are in construction.
14
In fact, I would claim that what he is describing refers to the fact that, in
general, the Vn shape has retained a connection with functions associated with
dative case in Old English, the Vne shape with accusative case in Old English,
but that the -e ending, suering from phonetic attrition has led to considerable
and growing ambiguity and an inevitable merger (or loss) of forms.
Therefore, even if we take on board all of Jones provisos, we must, I
would claim, assume that there was an ongoing blending between the Vne and
Vn shapes.
Another ambiguity is also present in these circumstances: that between these
two highly ambiguated forms and V. Earlier scholars have seen this develop-
ment as representing the introduction of the new undeclined the form into the
existing paradigms (or perhaps even as an alternative to it). But whilst in a very
broad historical sense this is no doubt correct, it does seem as likely, if not more
so, that in fact the V form is a natural, organic result of the variation we have
already seen. We can probably see this in the variation to be found in the multi-
manuscript texts already mentioned:
(23) a. Katerine (late twelfth century)
R 522 adun warp ene wierwinne of helle
B 437 ant adun weorp e wierwinne of helle
T 8078 adun weorp e wier-wine of helle
and throw down the hellish adversary
b. Laamon (later thirteenth century) 6576
C at child ef an abbede on hond : twenti sulhene lond.
O and e child ef e abbot on hond :: twente solene lond
and the child gave into the abbots hands twenty plough lands.
It would seem from this that writers (and scribes) at the time did not always
make a complete distinction between these forms as representatives of a given
functional zone alone. By this I mean that whilst some remnants of the historical
patterns are obviously represented in the day-to-day language of these writers
and scribes (in the sense that they are largely able albeit with declining
accuracy to represent something approaching the historical system), the
walls between the dierent functions are by no means as stable as they once
were. For instance, in one of the latest copies of an lfric text (beginning of the
thirteenth century), De Initio Creaturae from BL Cotton Vespasian A.xxii, there
appears to have been some transmission of a tradition of correct classical
Anglo-Saxon endings, but these are on occasion completely swapped around.
Thus whilst an early witness (CUL Gg.3.28) reads,
(24) seo eore e is awyrige on inum weorce
the earth which is cursed by your work,
Vespasian reads,
(25) se eore his awirigd on ine weorcum
(Millar and Nicholls 1997: 443). It might also imply that there are other than
purely linguistic reasons for the use or non-use of a traditional or a modern
form. By this I mean that in a society where the literate and their culture are
very much in a minority, and where this culture has an extreme respect for
auctoritas, there is no guarantee that the form evinced on the page is necessarily
the majority form in the scribes idiolect (Stanley 1969 and 1988). That these
distinctions were eventually rendered essentially meaningless can be seen in the
use of what appear to be the original declined forms in the period after all case
and gender marking seems to have been jettisoned, for example:
(26) Sir Orfeo (mid-fourteenth century) 534
e fairest leuedi for e nones / at mit gan on bodi & bones
the fairest lady for the nonce who could walk around in body and
bones.
Similar processes can be seen at work with the compound demonstrative
pronouns, bearing in mind Rennhards caveat cited in the above. In Old English
the form for dative singular masculine/neuter (and dative plural) contexts was
issum; the form used in accusative singular masculine contexts was isne. By
the same processes as those described in the preceding, these two forms began
to fall together at isse (particularly since for a large part of the late Old English
and early Middle English periods the nal nasal of the dative form was repre-
sented only by /n/),
(27) Vices and Virtues (early thirteenth century) 55/31
of ese liue
of this life.
As with the above, the nal -e ending appears to have been particularly prone to
phonetic attrition. This means that we often nd forms with the basic structure
+ vowel + s in those contexts originally associated with the declined forms
already described, for example,
(28) Laamon (later thirteenth century) 5693
C of is rd
O of is er
from this country.
Variation between these forms can also be seen within the same manuscript
version, for instance,
(29) a. Iuliane (late twelfth century)
R 517 of isse reade
B 656 of is reade
C vnder issen stane
O vnder is stone
under this stone
c. Laamon (later thirteenth century) 3098
C bi isse s-rime
O bi is see-rime
by this seashore
d. Laamon (later thirteenth century) 2670
C of isse lond
O of is lond
from this country.
Many scholars have seen this usage as representing the introduction of the
undeclined, radical this form; the root vowel variation militates against this,
however, even if, again, over a broad enough historical perspective they could be
seen as being correct. Again I would suggest that underlying this variation is an
organic, system-internal development.
4.2 Ambiguity in form
The corollary to the above is ambiguity in form. A number of the function
specic forms of both paradigms were dierentiated in Old English only by
alternation in the root vowel. This became the case most particularly after the sV
forms of the nominative masculine and feminine singular simple demonstrative
se and seo were replaced in a number of dialects by V forms by the
forces of analogy e and eo. Thus all that dierentiated nominative and
accusative functional contexts with nouns of the feminine gender class with both
paradigms was the root vowel (eo vs. a, eos vs. as). The same minimal
variation was to be found in nominative contexts between masculine and
feminine forms in the case of the simple demonstrative pronouns (e and eo)
and all forms in the case of the compound demonstrative (es vs. eos vs. is).
Given that there are a number of occasions when demonstrative pronouns are not
stressed in a clause (Minkova 1991: 128129) (particularly when, as we have
seen, the same forms are being used in near-article functions), it is inevitable that
there would be some confusion between root vowels, often being pronounced as
schwa. This was exacerbated in the early Middle English period by a number of
sound changes which rendered the ambiguity even more critical.
This confusion can be seen in the way in which simple demonstrative
pronoun forms are employed in contexts with which they would not have been
associated in classical Old English,
(30) a. Peterborough Chronicle 1st Continuation 1131/10
a scyrte a escmete
then the meat was in short supply
b. Peterborough Chronicle 2nd Continuation 1137/54
e erthe ne bar non corn
the earth did not bear any corn
c. Laamon (later thirteenth century) 149
C a brude dead iwar
the bride was dead
d. Katerine (late twelfth century)
B 260 tu schalt sone etsterten al e
R 323 tu schalt sone etsterten al e strence
T 4934 tu schalt sone atstirten al e strenge
you must immediately escape from all the strength
e. Vices and Virtues (late twelfth century) 91/18
is is ewiss e holie mihte
this is indeed the holy power
f. Vices and Virtues (late twelfth century) 139/8
e fule wombe is crewlinde full of weormes
the foul womb/belly is crawling full of worms
g. South English Legendary (late thirteenth century) Bridget 34
for al e worlde ssel ioyuol beo
for all the world must be joyful
h. South English Legendary (late thirteenth century) Patrick 533
for as e sonne bynyme e lit
for as the sun takes the light.
Again, the nature of the variation is made plainer if we consider the variation
found between dierent manuscript copies of the same text, for example
(31) a. Laamon (later thirteenth century) 139
C eo wiman hefde on wombe
O e womman bere
the woman had in her womb/ the woman bore
C muchel wes a neode
O mochel was e neode
great was the need
c. Katerine (late twelfth century)
R 275 is meiden wes bicluset eo hwile
B 222 eos meiden wes bicluset e hwile
T 4212 es meiden was bicluset e hwile
this maiden was enclosed for the period.
Nevertheless we nd occasions in very similar contexts where there is no
variation, the sole form remaining apparently being e:
(32) a. Laamon (later thirteenth century) 630
C hou e lfdi him side
O wat e leafdi saide
how the lady said/ what the lady said to him
b. Iuliene (late twelfth century)
R 4025 hire nebscheft schininde al as schene as e sunne
B 5146 hire nebscheft schene as e sunne
her face (shining all as) bright as the sun
c. Katerine (late twelfth century)
B 347 es is al e lare
R 436 es is al e lare
T 645 is is al e lare
this is all the knowledge.
This ambiguity can also be seen with the compound demonstratives, where a Vs
form associated with a particular case and gender context would have been
expected historically in a given context, but where, instead, a Vs form, either
historically associated with another case or gender context or with no such
context at all, is realised, for instance:
(33) a. Vices and Virtues (late twelfth century) 69/3
ies ungemann iede a-wei sari
this young man went away sorry
b. Vices and Virtues (late twelfth century) 105/9
es ilche hali mihte iusticia
this same holy power justicia
d. South English Legendary (late thirteenth century) Juliana 185
led is hore fram me
take this whore away from me,
and indeed where two manuscript variants of the same text contain the same error:
(34) a. Iuliene (late twelfth century)
R220 bidden eos bone
B271 bidde eos bone
make this request
C Conaan eos eue afeng
O Conan eos eft onderfen[g]
Conan received this gift.
Earlier scholars have seen the processes described here as demonstrating the
introduction of the undeclined new forms the and this. Again I say that this
might be true if viewed over a suciently broad historical perspective. As I
hope I have shown, however, the developments involved in this movement
towards heavily circumscribed formal variation associated with all functions is
actually part of ongoing, organic, evolutionary processes within the paradigms them-
selves.
4.3 Lesser phonological attacks on the system
Two other processes also fall within the framework of phonological attacks upon
the inherited system. The rst of these is formal dislocation, most noticeable in
the erosion of use with forms (not just demonstrative forms) with the -re ending,
associated with feminine dative singular and eventually feminine genitive
singular contexts. We can see this process in the way in which texts of similar
dates and provenance, but of strikingly dierent conception realise very dier-
ent proportions of such forms. For instance, in the Caligula version of Laamons
Brut around 90% of all feminine nouns in dative case or in dative-triggering
prepositional contexts are modied by demonstratives with -re endings (the
historically correct ending). In Seinte Katerine, whose surviving manuscripts
date from considerably earlier than those of the Brut, no -re forms whatsoever
are found in these contexts. The same apparent lack is true for other texts from
roughly the same period, albeit without such striking exclusion. This could
suggest that whilst -re forms are still part of the formal inventory of the scribes
in question, that does not mean that the use of a given form is random. What I
am suggesting is that the use or non-use of the -re forms in the given texts is a
marked stylistic decision on the part of the author (and probably scribes). As Eric
Stanley (1969) and others have pointed out, the Caligula version of the Brut (and
perhaps the archetype) demonstrates considerable tendencies towards archaism in
its language. Katerine (indeed the AB group in general) is, despite its undoubted
inuence from late Anglo-Saxon models, more interested in the modern world.
The use of -re forms might therefore be seen as as demonstrating an historical
perspective on the part of the author (or scribes), the non-use a contemporary
one. This specialisation in use probably masks the fact that -re forms were the
only part of the compound demonstrative paradigm and, with the exception of
the t form, of the simple demonstrative paradigm which was not part of the
general tendencies towards the movement towards one form found with the
ambiguities discussed in 4.1 and 4.2 above. In the case of t this distinctiveness
fed into processes described in 5 below; with the -re forms it led to a gradual
dislocation from the rest of the paradigm
Secondly, there is genitive reinterpretation, where a long-standing (but
minority) means of describing possessive relationships (except when describing
Christian concepts) along the lines of
(35) [dener [noun in genitive case] noun]
se cyninges eow
the servant of [the] king
replaced the earlier more prevalent
(36) [[dener and noun in genitive case] noun]
s cyninges eow
[the] servant of the king
structure, possibly to avoid confusion between this particular simple demonstra-
tive form es and a large part of the compound demonstrative paradigm
rendered confused by ambiguity in form is, eos, es, as. The develop-
ment can be seen in examples such as
(37) Seinte Katerine (late twelfth century)
B 695 et wes es deoes budel
R 8823 wes es deoules budel
T was te deoules budel
who was the devils door-man.
Each of these ambiguities would by their nature have weakened the formal
diversity and individual distinctiveness of both simple and compound demonstra-
tive pronoun paradigms. Together they were disastrous to the integrity of the link
between form and dened function.
5. Paradigm ssure
From an early period in the history of the great changes of which these develop-
ments form a part, Old English t, originally associated only with distal
semantic contexts with nouns of the neuter gender-class in nominative and
accusative case functional zones, was being used in positions with which it was
not historically associated, whether this was in terms of gender, for example,
(38) a. Lindisfarne Gospels Mark XV/4345
giuede lichoma hlendes mid ongt from m aldormenn
salde lichoma iosep
(Latin: petit corpus Iesu et cumcognouisset a centurione donauit
corpus ioseph)
[he] asked about the body of the saviour and learned about
that from the centurion he gave that body to Joseph
b. Peterborough Chronicle 1095/645
man syan et Romesceot be him sende
afterwards Peters Pence was sent with him
c. Iuliene (late twelfth century) R 4934
Reue us reowe si
Magistrate, that journey grieves us
d. Laamon (later thirteenth century) C 4473
al at winter heo wuneden here
all that winter they lived there
15
e. Vices and Virtues (late twelfth century) 45/1920
Alswo do at unwise mann
as does that unwise man
or number, for example,
luric wes king of londe : bi noren ere Humbre . And Cadwan wes
king sele : a su half ere Humbre . blisse wes on hireden : mid balden
at kingen
luric was king of the land to the north of the Humber and
Cadwan was the good king of the land to the south of the Humber.
Bliss was among the people because of those bold kings.
A number of scholars, most notably Ross in his 1936 article, have associated this
development with what has been termed neutralisation. In languages that have
three genders today, the three genders masculine, feminine and neuter are not
associated entirely with male, female and asexual/nonhuman/inanimate classes.
The process under discussion here, it is suggested, attempted to redress this
balance by encouraging nouns which represented asexual or inanimate meaning
to move into the neuter gender-class. By the same token, male words would
become masculine and female feminine. Whilst there is little doubt that processes
of this type did occasionally take place, that does not mean to say that it was by
any means common. Indeed scholars who follow this school of thought occasion-
ally nd themselves having to indulge in special pleading to explain why a given
form should have changed gender, gone through Genuswechsel gender
change. The idea itself is, in fact, fundamentally awed. The grammatical
gender classes are largely means by which noun classes are kept separate. Indeed
it is unfortunate that the sex-terminology of the Roman (and earlier Greek)
grammarians should have been carried forward into modern times, inuencing
the thought processes in particular of those whose language does not have this
kind of distinction.
More promising from the point of view of what the process of semantic
specialisation with that actually consisted of is the work on the breakdown of
grammatical gender carried out by Charles Jones. In his work on the relationship
between form and function with the demonstrative paradigms in late Old English
and early Middle English, most signicantly in the English gloss to the
Lindisfarne Gospels, Jones (most cogently in 1988: 2.42.10) suggests that, as
in present-day English, radical usages of t represent from a very early
period a concentration on the demonstrative element of the simple demon-
stratives semantic eld, whilst at the same time other forms from the same
paradigm still represent their full range of original semantic and functional
associations. This discrepancy provokes what I term an ambiguity in function.
As with the other ambiguities born from variation described before, there would
have come a point where the weaker of the two competing systems, the
historical one, no longer supported by the original case-gender apparatus, would
have been jettisoned in an eort to streamline the system, to avoid ambiguity.
Yet neither Jones apparently incontestable description of the process, or the
more dubious neutralisation hypotheses previously prevalent, actually explain
what the motivation behind this development was. It might be argued that the
semantic specialisation of that is largely due to the breakdown of grammatical
gender yes indeed, but only because it is part of the same process. If purely
the breakdown of grammatical gender were involved in this process, it would be
most unlikely that a single form (from one, not both paradigms) should have
been plucked out to represent a highly specied distal demonstrative meaning.
I would argue that, to do this, we have to look beyond system-internal factors
and examine what was prevalent system-externally.
In Western Europe today, most languages have separate distal demonstrative
pronouns and deners. This is with the exception of High German, which, as we
have seen, has near-article functions associated with its distal demonstrative. In
the late Old English period, when English was rst developing a denite article,
this was the case with at least the Celtic languages, French and the Scandinavian
dialects (le Bidois and le Bidois 1967: 65220; Hulthn 1948: 1886; Calder
1923 [1990]: 117; Wessn 1958: 128; Iversen 1973: 148149), albeit with
somewhat less general coverage than is the case today. Could it be possible that
one (or more) of these languages should have inuenced English?
At rst glance, the most obvious choice for contact-induced change would
be the Celtic languages. But the Celtic languages have had such a small inu-
ence upon Standard English even in the easily changeable lexical sphere
that it is dicult to imagine how this might have come about in the far less
susceptible to change semantic/syntactic zone. The two most far-reaching
inuences upon English during the period are the Scandinavian and Norman
French inuences.
Without giving the development much thought, it is the French inuence
that appears the more promising. It is, after all, the case that while Norse has
and had a postposed enclitic dener derived from the third person singular
personal pronoun (Modern Danish mand man manden the man) and a
preposed distal demonstrative (Modern Danish den mand that man), French
like English has (and had) a preposed demonstrative and a similarly preposed
denite article. There are problems with accepting such a conclusion at face
value, however.
At the time at which t was rst developing a more circumscribed
semantic/functional zone in comparison with the rest of the simple demonstrative
paradigm, English was not in direct substantial contact with any of the dialects
of French. It was only when the development was well underway in some
dialects that the growth in Norman inuence preceding the Conquest of 1066
was felt. Equally, if there were a transfer of usage of a more casual nature before
the Conquest, it would be most unlikely to have been instigated in the North of
England where the change appears to have started. The Scandinavian presence in
England was concentrated in just such an area, however.
16
When people who speak one language begin to speak another, they are
inclined to carry over linguistic material from their rst language to their second.
Speakers of Scandinavian languages would have felt the need for a separate
dener in the new language they were learning. There are two ways in which
they might have gone about such a development. The rst is that they would
have carried over their own native mode of dening into the new language,
either by using their native formation or by employing the same process using
the tools of the new language (mannhe the man). The second would be to use
the building blocks of the new language to create essentially the same semantic
distinction without using the same morphological materials. It was, of course, the
latter that came about.
The reasons for this will no doubt always be obscure these were obscure
times historically for the North of England, after all. I might tentatively put
forward an explanation, however. If English had had only a distal demonstrative
that was not also used as a dener (the near-article), it is quite possible that the
Norse speakers of English would have carried over their own pattern of forma-
tion into the new language. But since English had, as was seen in 3.2 above, just
such a semantic distinction (albeit without a concomitant semantic split), it would
probably have been easier for the Norse English speakers to reinterpret one
phonologically distinct element of the paradigm as separate from the rest, as
being equivalent to their own distal demonstrative pronoun (which in terms of
origin that of course is). This association would have been encouraged by the
gradual formal simplication of the simple demonstrative paradigms (although
this might be a chicken and egg type explanation since this simplication might
have been permitted by the semantic simplication).
It could be argued that with the growth in French-speaking inuence in
England during the eleventh century, the prestige nature of that languages
system might have encouraged the development of this new system forged by
paradigm ssure. But it could only encourage a development that had already
been initiated.
6. Conclusions
It can therefore be argued that the development of a discrete denite article in
English, whilst a not unlikely event, was by no means inevitable. If English had
followed the same path as High German, it would today have a simple demon-
strative pronoun which also represented near-article meanings. Even if the great
morpho-syntactic changes in the language had been carried through under such
a scenario it would not be impossible for English to have maintained the main
distinction between the as distal demonstrative and near article, and this as
proximal demonstrative.
That this is not the case has, I would argue, more to do with the develop-
ment of that as a pure demonstrative, bearing only distal meaning with little in
the way of article or near-article function. Whilst it would be impossible to prove
that this development was not due to system-internal developments, it would
seem likely that there was at least some inuence from the speakers of Norse
dialects settled in the North of England who already had such a semantic
outcome in their own languages.
Notes
1. Although Maria Selig (1992: 5.3) would claim that the development has more to do with the
codication of a previously only optional concept. This, I would argue, is a telescoping of two
separate processes into one, however.
2. In work more recent than his 1978 article, Greenberg has further rened his views on these
developments. He now sees the development in question as being part of the process he terms
re-grammaticalization. In his view, Stage I of such a development would be where demon-
stratives become denite articles. In Stage II their use is extended to all specic nouns,
whether denite or indenite. This type of development leads, in his view, to the article
becoming morphologised as a prex or sux on a noun. In Stage III, the use of this ax
spreads to almost all nouns (Greenberg 1991). Heinrichs comment (1954: 21) that, der
gleichzeitige Gebrauch von Pronomen als Demonstrativa und als Artikel [schwcht] die
deiktische Kraft dieser Pronomina (the simultaneous use of pronouns as demonstrative and
as article weakens the deictic strength of these pronouns) demonstrates that these views have
been present in a less developed form for a considerable period. It is worth noting, however,
that nowhere does he explain why (or even how) the paradigm ssure already described has
taken place
3. This statement is made with the proviso that Modern High German has developed the
capability of making some distinction in some case/gender contexts between simple demon-
strative pronouns which can be used in both article and demonstrative contexts and those
which can be used only in demonstrative.
4. Rennhard (1962: 235) suggests that [d]ie Formen des einf. Dem. zeigen sich als ziemlich
stabil. Sie sind noch alle in MSS belegt, die fr das zus. Dem. nur noch als Restformen
bestehen (The forms of the simple demonstratives show themselves to be fairly stable. They
are still all exemplied in the manuscripts; the forms of the compound demonstratives only
exist as residual forms). Whilst the reason for this discrepancy is dicult to explain, it
certainly has a degree of truth to it. Nevertheless, many of the processes discussed for the
simple demonstrative can also be found for the compound demonstrative.
5. See, for instance, Diehn (1901: 66), Seidler (1901: 23) and, in particular, Jones (1964: 240241),
(1967a: 105), (1967b: 303), (1983: 336), (1988: 100101, 217218, 221, 228) and Markus
(1990: 6.4.2).
6. Indeed, so ubiquitous has this usage become in British dialects that it can be heard spreading
into rhotic accents such as those to be found in Scotland.
7. Indeed Minkova herself appears to have been heading along these lines in earlier work. In her
1984 essay she writes (1984: 57):
Elision, both metrical and in ordinary speech was a widespread phenomenon in
EME, ie before 1200 It is possible to consider elision in hiatus the environmen-
tally conditioned beginning of the more general, across the board, process of schwa
deletion in English.
8. For examples (10) and (11) see transcriptions in Millar and Nicholls (1997).
9. For a discussion of this point see Millar and Nicholls (1997: 442443).
10. It is more than likely Pervaz who based her idea upon that of dArdenne, since dArdenne
(1961) is a reprint of a widely disseminated dissertation of 1936.
11. The orthographical practise here is Jones.
12. It is worth noting, however, that this example does not suit completely the position-based
arguments he gives before.
13. In the Peterborough Chronicle. As Jones (1988: 183) shows with Laamons Brut, examples of
the phenomenon under discussion exist more or less as occasional forms alongside preposi-
tional phrase constructions involving locative [by which I assume he means dative] case
forms, following which he cites examples with Vn and Vre. It may be that with the
Laamon examples he is indulging in special pleading, since, as we saw in Chapter 3, the
latter, dative, type much outweighs the accusative. It may be that the phenomenon is
conned largely to the First Continuation of the Peterborough Chronicle, in which case we
might have to question whether Vne is preferred in these contexts because it is phonologically
more marked than is Vn. If this is the case, then Cecily Clarks remarks (Clark 1970: lxi) that
[t]he unhistorical uses of one are to be explained by an analogous substitution of Vne for
the V found in Peterborough speech is due to false archaism, which Jones (1988: 150),
disparages saying, False archaism is a recourse made by a linguistic model devoid of
explanatory power, may actually have some truth underlying them. This would be the case if
as I am suggesting in this essay there was considerable ambiguity leading to variation
within the demonstrative paradigms. Rather than there being a complete substitution of one
form by another, we have instead a preference on the part of scribes for a more overtly
traditional form still present, if not necessarily common over a new form without
auctoritas, as has been suggested for other texts by Stanley (1969) and Millar and Nicholls
(1997).
In fact, evidence from the late Old English glosses do appear to refute Jones assertion
that it would be impossible for a scribe to maintain an articial system consistently. In his
essay on Karl Luicks assertion that man schrieb wie man sprach, Eric Stanley writes
(1988: 321322):
the absence of Scandinavianisms in Owuns South Northumbrian (except when
copied from Aldreds North Northumbrian) is striking, and must mean that Owun,
working in a heavily Scandinavianized part of England and presumably himself
speaking the English of the area, did not readily admit Scandinavian loanwords into
his writings, but he sometimes copied such words from the Lindisfarne gloss to
which he had access.
It might be argued, however, that such a task is easier when it comes to lexis than it would be
with morphology. This does not negate the whole point, however.
14. Jones argument (1988: 5.5) that this ambiguity is peculiar to the Brut is, as we have seen,
entirely untenable.
15. Note the equivalent in O: al an winter wonede here.
16. See Millar (1997) for a discussion of the theoretical implications of this distribution.
Texts
dArdenne, S. R. T. O. (ed.). 1961. e Liade ant te Passiun of Seinte Iuliene [EETS os
248]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
dArdenne, S. R. T. O. and Dobson, E. J. (eds). 1981. Seinte Katerine. [re-edited from MS
Bodley 34 and the other Manuscripts, EETS ss 7]. London/Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Atkins, J. W. H. (ed.). 1922. The Owl and the Nightingale. [ed. with introduction, texts,
notes, translation and glossary]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bliss, A. J. (ed.). 1966. Sir Orfeo, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brook, G. L. and Leslie, R. F. (eds). 1963/1972. Laamon: Brut. [edited from the British
Museum MS Cotton Caligula A.ix and British Museum Ms, Cotton Otho C.xiii.,
EETS os 250/277], London/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, C. (ed.). 1970. The Peterborough Chronicle, 10701154, 2nd edition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
dEvelyn, C. and Mill, A. J. (eds). 1956. The South English Legendary, [edited from
Corpus Christi Cambridge Ms. 145 and British Museum Ms. Harley 2277 with
variants from Bodley MS. Ashmole 43 and British Museum Ms. Cotton Julius D.
IX, vol. 1, EETS os 235], London/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holthausen, F. (ed.). 1888. Vices and Virtues. [EETS os 89]. London/Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Skeat, W. W. (ed.). 1887. The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon Northumbrian and Old
Mercian Versions, [synoptically arranged, with collations exhibiting all the readings
of all the MSS., together with the early Latin version as contained in the Lindisfarne
MS., collated with the Latin version in the Rushworth MS.], Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
References
Anderson, J. 1977. On Case Grammar. London: Croom Helm.
dArdenne, S. R. T. O. (ed.). 1961. e Liade ant te Passiun of Seinte Iuliene [EETS os
248]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
le Bidois, G. and le Bidois, R. 1967. Syntaxe du francais moderne: ses fondements
historiques et psychologiques, 2nd edition. Paris: Picard.
Blake, B. J. 1994. Case [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Blake, N. F. and Jones, Ch. (eds). English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development
[CECTAL Conference Papers Series 3]. Sheeld: The Centre for English Cultural
Tradition and Language, University of Sheeld.
Calder, G. 1923. A Gaelic Grammar: Containing the Parts of Speech and the General
Principles of Phonology and Etymology, with a Chapter on Proper and Place Names.
Glasgow: MacLaren.
Campbell, A. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christophersen, P. 1939. The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English. Oxford:
Clark, C. (ed.). 1970. The Peterborough Chronicle, 10701154, 2nd edition. Oxford:
Diehn, O. 1901. Die Pronomina im Frhmittelenglischen [Kieler Studien zur englischen
Philologie 1]. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Elliott, R. W. V. 1974. Chaucers English. London: Andr Deutsch.
Fisiak, J. (ed.). 1980. Historical Morphology. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, Ch. A. and Moravcsik, E. A. (eds). 1978. Universals of Human
Language, vol. 3: Word Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, J. H. 1978. Gender markers. In Universals of Human Language, vol. 3:
Word Structure. J. H. Greenberg, Ch. A. Ferguson and E. A. Moravcsik (eds), 4882.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, J. H. 1991. The last stages of grammatical elements: Contractive and
expansive desemanticization, In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological
Studies in Language 19], E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 301314. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Heinrichs, H. M. 1954. Studien zum bestimmten Artikel in den germanischen Sprachen.
Giessen: Wilhelm Schmitz.
Himmelmann, N. P. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntaktischer
Struktur [Linguistische Arbeiten 362]. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Homann, P. 1909. Das grammatische Genus in Laamons Brut [Studien zur englischen
Philologie 36]. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Hulthn, L. 1948. Jmfrande Nunordisk Syntax II [Comparative Syntax of the Contempo-
rary Nordic Languages II]. Gteborgs Hgskolas rsskrift LIII. Gothenburg:
Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.
Iversen, R. 1973. Norrn Grammatikk [Norse Grammar], 7th edition by F. Halvorsen.
Oslo: Aschehoug.
Jones, Ch. 1964. Grammatical gender in late Old English and early Middle English. B.
Litt. dissertation, University of Glasgow.
Jones, Ch. 1967a. The functional motivation of linguistic change. English Studies
48: 97111.
Jones, Ch. 1967b. The grammatical category of gender in early Middle English. English
Studies 48: 289305.
Jones, Ch. 1983. Determiners and case-marking in Middle English: A localist approach.
Lingua 59: 331343.
Jones, Ch. 1988. Grammatical Gender in English 9501250. London: Croom Helm.
Kastovsky, D. and Bauer, G. (eds). 1988. Luick Revisited. Tbingen: Narr.
English. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Kerkhof, J. 1982. Studies in the Language of Georey Chaucer, 2nd edition. Leiden:
Leiden University Press.
Koch, C. F. 1882. Die Laut und Flexionslehre der englischen Sprache, 2nd edition. Kassel:
Georg H. Wigand.
Krner, K. 1888. Beitrge zur Geschichte des Genuswechsels der englischen Substantiva.
Ph. D. dissertation, University of Greifswald.
Kramsky, J. 1972. The Article and the Concept of Deniteness in Language [Janua
Linguarum Series Minor 125]. The Hague: Mouton.
Laing, M. (ed.). 1989. Middle English Dialectology. Essays on Some Principles and
Problems. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
Landwehr, N. 1911. Das grammatische Geschlechts in der Ancren Riwle. Ph. D.
dissertation, University of Heidelberg.
Lehmann, Ch. 1982. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. A Programmatic Sketch. Cologne:
Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft.
Markus, M. 1990. Mittelenglisches Studienbuch. Tbingen: Francke.
Micillo, V. 1982. Observazioni sulla determinazione in antico inglese, Annali
instituto universitario orientale di Napoli sezione germanica [AIUON 25], 161202.
Millar, R.McC. 1997. English a koinoid? Some suggestions for reasons behind the
creoloid-like features of a language which is not a creoloid. Vienna English
Working Papers 6: 1949.
Millar, R.McC. and Nicholls, A. 1997. lfrics De Initio Creaturae and London, British
Library, Cotton Vespasian A.xxii: Omission, addition, retention and innovation. In
The Preservation and Transmission of Anglo-Saxon Culture [Studies in Medieval
Culture XL], P. E. Szarmach and J. T. Rosenthal (eds), 431463. Kalamazoo:
Medieval Institute Publications.
Minkova, D. 1984. Early Middle English metre elision and schwa deletion. In English
Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development [CECTAL Conference Papers Series
3], N. F. Blake and Ch. Jones (eds), 5666. Sheeld: The Centre for English
Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheeld.
Minkova, D. 1991. The History of Final Vowels in English. The Sound of Muting. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Pervaz, D. 1958. The survival of grammatical gender in Laamons Brut, the Southern
Legendary and Robert of Gloucesters Chronicle. Ph. D. dissertation, University of
Edinburgh.
Purdy, D. W. 1973. Did Old English have a denite article?. York Papers in Linguistics
7: 121124.
Quirk, R. and Wrenn, L. 1955. An Old English Grammar. London: Methuen.
Rennhard, S. 1962. Das Demonstrativum im Mittelenglischen. Winterthur: P. G. Keller.
Ross, A. S. C. 1936. Sex and Gender in the Lindisfarne Gospels. Journal of English and
Germanic Philology 35: 321330.
Samuels, M. L. 1989a. Chaucerian nal -E. In The English of Chaucer and his
contemporaries, J. J. Smith (ed.), 712. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
Samuels, M. L. 1989b. Some applications of Middle English Dialectology. In Middle
English Dialectology. Essays on Some Principles and Problems, M. Laing (ed.),
6480. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
Seidler, O. 1901. Die Flexion des englischen einfachen Demonstrativpronomens in der
bergangzeit 10001200. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Greifswald.
Selig, M. 1992. Die Entwicklung der Nominaldeterminanten im Sptlatein: Romanischer
Sprachwandel und Lateinische Schriftlichkeit [Script Oralia 26]. Tbingen: Narr
Smith, J. J. (ed.). 1989. The English of Chaucer and his Contemporaries. Aberdeen:
Aberdeen University Press.
Spamer, J. B. 1979. The development of the denite article in English: A case study of
syntactic change. Glossa 13: 241250.
Stanley, E. G. 1969. Laamons antiquarian sentiments. Medium vum 38: 2337.
Stanley, E. G. 1988. Karl Luicks Man schrieb wie man sprach and English Historical
Philology. In Luick Revisited, D. Kastovsky and G. Bauer (eds), 311334.
Tbingen: Narr.
Szarmach, P. E. and Rosenthal, J. T. (eds). 1997. The Preservation and Transmission of
Anglo-Saxon Culture [Studies in Medieval Culture XL]. Kalamazoo: Medieval
Institute Publications.
Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological
Studies in Language 19]. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Vachek, J. 1980. Problems of morphology seen from the structuralist and functionalist
point of view. In Historical Morphology, J. Fisiak (ed.), 373381. The Hague:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Wessn, E. 1956. Svensk Sprkhistoria, vol. III, Grundlinjer till en Historisk Syntax [The
History of the Swedish Language, vol. III, Outlines of an historical syntax.].
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Wessn, E. 1958. Islndsk grammatik [Icelandic Grammar]. Stockholm: Svenska
Bokforlaget.
Parallelism vs. asymmetry
The case of English counterfactual conditionals
Rafa Molencki
University of Silesia
1. Introduction
In the languages of the world one can come across two opposing tendencies in
the form of the protasis and the apodosis in counterfactual conditionals. In line
with one of these tendencies both clauses have identical verb forms the same
morphosyntactic marking and thus they often cannot be distinguished one
from another, especially when there are no subordinators. This natural cross-
linguistic tendency for isomorphic verbal forms in the protasis and apodosis
what Behaghel (19231932) called Streben nach Parallelismus is found in
many languages (among others Papuan, Australian, various African languages,
Baltic, Slavonic, Romance and Hungarian). It should, however, be noted that the
verbs can be accompanied by some other markers (e.g. conjunctions, particles or
inversion). The strive for parallelism has been competing with another tendency
to make protasis and apodosis dierent, either for economic reasons (the same
does not have to be repeated) or because, being less irrealis, the protasis gets
demodalized. Some other examples of the variation between parallelism and
asymmetry can be found in the development of English adverbial clauses, e.g.
Old English a , a ; onne , onne , later replaced by when , (then) ,
or coordinate structures ge , ge , now rendered by both , and .
Discussing isomorphism, Bolinger (1977: x) says that the natural condition
of language is to preserve one form for one meaning, and one meaning for one
form. Haiman (1985: 30) agrees: Recurrent identity of form must reect
similarity of meaning, which is justied by the economy of language. The
presence of synonymy (several forms one meaning) and homonymy (one form
several meanings) in all languages might be treated as counterevidence of
312 RAFA MOLENCKI
isomorphism, but, as is well known, perfect synonyms are extremely rare and
language will tolerate homonymy as long as it does not bring about confusion.
The central issue in this article is whether in protasis and apodosis we have
the same meaning or not. From the data presented it appears that speakers of
dierent languages and especially speakers of English at dierent stages of its
development have not been consistent in their choice of verb forms in counter-
factual conditionals. While morphologically symmetrical protasis and apodosis
indicate that the two verb forms convey the same meaning, the other tendency to
make the two clauses formally distinct supports the contrary. This conrms the
cognitivist view that the apodosis is epistemically more remote than the protasis
(cf. James 1982; Dancygier and Sweetser 1994).
The data found in the present work come from large electronically readable
corpora of earlier and modern English texts, to which I have applied searching
and concordancing programs. The major sources are the Diachronic Part of the
Helsinki corpus (Kyt 1993; wherever possible I checked the examples in the
book editions), the on-line version of the Second Edition of the Oxford English
Dictionary and the CD-ROM versions of two British quality daily newspapers
from the year 1993. Additionally I have used some other Early Modern English
texts downloaded from various websites (see Electronic corpora in the Referenc-
es below) and the data collected by Visser (19631973), the editors of the
Middle English Dictionary and some other authors. The article also includes some
random examples that I have come across while reading numerous old and
contemporary pieces of writing.
2. Early Germanic parallelism
Throughout the history of English there has been interesting variation in the
interaction of tense, mood and modality in expressing counterfactuality. It has
been one of the most unstable categories and has kept on changing its morpho-
syntactic exponents at dierent stages of the languages development. This life-
cycle of counterfactual markers in Germanic is best described in Dahl (1997).
The pre-Old English stage, as the Gothic data appear to indicate, was character-
ized by parallel preterite optative forms in the protasis and the apodosis:
(1) frauja, i veseis her, ni au gadaunodedi broar meins.
Lord if thou-were here not then died brother mine
Vulgate: domine si fuisses hic frater meus non fuisset mortuus.
Authorised Version (1611):
Lord if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died John 11,21
PARALLELISM VS. ASYMMETRY IN COUNTERFACTUALS 313
though Behre (1934: 53) believes that in earlier Germanic the preterite subjunc-
tive was originally used for past counterfactuals only and that later its usage was
extended to present counterfactual situations.
In Old English and Early Middle English the preterite subjunctive/indicative
forms (cf. Campbell (1959: 302) on the gradual loss of morphological contrasts
between the two moods) are found in both present and past counterfactual
protases and apodoses. According to Mitchell (1985: 3607), unreality in OE is
timeless, as is exemplied by:
(2) He nre na lmihtig, gif him nig gefadung earfoe
he not-were() no almighty if him any order dicult
wre.
were()
He would not be almighty if any order were dicult for him to
maintain
general present time reference (DT 80 early 11th c.)
(3) gif u wistest hwt e toweard is onne weope
if thou knewest() what thee imminent is then wept()
u mid me.
thou with me
If you knew what is to come to you, you would weep with me
specic present time reference (CHom i.404.27 early 11th c.)
(4) ac hit wre to hrdlic gif he a on cildcradole
but it were() too quick if he then in child-cradle
acweald wurde.
killed were()
but it would have been too early if he had been killed in his cradle
then
past time reference (CHom i.82.28 early 11th c.)
Similarly in Early Middle English:
(5) Witti wise wordes hit weren ef ha neren false.
witty and wise words it were if they not-were false
These would be prudent and wise words if they werent false
(St. Katherine 317 c1200)
314 RAFA MOLENCKI
(6) Had ic an swerd, ic slue e.
had I a sword I slew thee
If I had had a sword, I would have killed you
(Genesis & Exodus 3976 a1325(c1250))
Needless to say, the same parallel preterite forms were found in those counter-
factuals whose protases and apodoses had dierent time reference, e.g.:
(7) ge witon t ge giet todge wron Somnitum eowe,
you know that you yet today were() to-Samnites slaves
gif ge him ne alugen iowra wedd eowre aas
if you them not denied() your pledges and your oaths
e ge him sealdon.
that you them gave
you know that you would be Samnites slaves still today if you had
not broken the pledges and oaths that you swore to them
(Orosius 67.5 late 9th c.)
Thus, only the presence of adverbials of time, some other context or the Latin
original, if extant or relevant, allow us to distinguish between the present and
past conditionals.
3. The emergence of the pluperfect in counterfactual conditionals
In the thirteenth century the pluperfect gradually begins to replace the preterite
in past counterfactuals. This must have been connected with the spread of the
tense in other constructions, e.g. temporal clauses or sequence of tenses in
reported speech (cf. Mustanoja 1960: 507; Fischer 1992: 259). The inuence of
French (so strong in vocabulary loaning) cannot be excluded, either this is the
time when so many Anglo-Norman speakers (and writers!) are switching to
English as the main medium of communication. First the pluperfect subjunctive
occurs, as the few contrasts left after the Late Old English morphophonemic
levelling indicate, but soon analogous indicative pluperfect forms prevail;
compare the earlier fourteenth century versions of the religious poem Cursor
Mundi with the end-of-the century manuscripts (the dating of manuscripts after
Horrall 1978: 1420):
(8) Had ou, sco said ben here wit vs
Had noght mi broer deied us. (14296 Cotton MS c1340(a1325))
had ou bene here ho saide wi us
had not my broer deyed us. (Fairfax MS late 14th c.)
Scho said, had u bene here wid vs
Had noght mi broer deiei us. (Gttingen MS 2nd half of 14th c.)
haddestou lord ben ere wi vs
Had not my broer deed us. (Trinity MS ?c1400)
Haddestou lord ben ere wi vs
Hadde not my broer died us. (Arundel MS ?c1400)
Lord, If you had been with us, my brother would not have died thus
Symmetrical forms of the past subjunctive and the pluperfect for present and past
counterfactuals respectively become a norm between 1250 and 1350:
(9) Yif he ne were Ich were nou ded.
if he not-were I were now dead
If it werent for him, I would be dead now (Havelok 54 c1300)
(10) War mi hare schorn, i war noght an Stranger an a-noer man.
were my hair shorn I were not then stronger than another man
If my hair were shorn, I wouldnt be stronger than anybody else
(Cursor Mundi 7211 1340(a1325))
(11) If he ne had rysen fra ded to lijf had ben us all for noght.
if he not had risen from dead to life had been us all for nothing
If he hadnt risen from the dead, everything would have lost its
signicance for us (Cursor Mundi 17061 1340(a1325))
(12) Bot al his praier had ben als noght If godd self his
but all his prayer had been as nothing if God himself his
might had wroght.
might had wrought
but all his prayer would have been of no use if God had shown his
power (Cursor Mundi 2797 1340(a1325))
4. Modals in the apodosis
From about the mid-fourteenth century onwards, the pluperfect in the apodosis
is being replaced by the combination of a bleached modal (most frequently
wolde, but scholde is not infrequent, either) +have +Past Participle, as in
316 RAFA MOLENCKI
(13) For had he knowen hit biforn A childe of a mayden born
for had he known it before a child of a maiden born
Wolde he neuer haue yuen to rede at iesu crist shulde haue
would he never have given to advice that Jesus Christ should have
ben dede.
been dead
For if he had known before about a child born of a virgin, he
would never have suggested that Jesus Christ should die
(Trinity MS Cursor Mundi, 10787 ?c1400)
(14) oure Lord Jhesu Crist wolde nevere have descended to be born of a
womman, if alle wommen hadden been wikke.
(Chaucer CT Melibee 220 c1395)
(15) For he had caught kywaert by the throte and had i not that tyme comen
he sholde haue taken his lyf from hym. (Caxton Reynard 8 1483)
Analogous wolde +present innitive forms are found in present counterfactuals:
(16) If ani barn of hir war ine I now it held it als for mine.
(Gttingen MS)
If any childe of hir were ine I wolde holde hit as for myne.
(Trinity MS) (Cursor Mundi 2601)
This is not an entirely new construction, as the northern versions of Old English
Gospels (10th-11th centuries) almost systematically have wolde + innitive, for
the southern (West-Saxon) preterite subjunctive in apodoses:
(17) West Saxon Gospels:
Gif he nre yfel-dde. ne sealde we hine e.
if he not-were evil-doer not gave we him thee
Lindisfarne Gospels:
gif nere es yfeldoend, nalde ue gesealla hine.
Authorised Version:
If he were not a malefactor, we would not have
delivered him up unto thee(John 18,30)
For more examples of the variation see Molencki (1998: 244245).
The replacement of the preterite subjunctive by the periphrastic construction
of (pre)modal +innitive in the northern Old English dialects rst can be easily
explained by the fact that the subjunctive/indicative contrast was rst lost in the
North, where the phonetic reduction of inectional endings to /6/ occurred at
least a century earlier than in the South. Being more counterfactual than the
protasis (cf. Dancygier and Sweetser 1994: 910), the apodosis rst needed to
replace the no longer distinctive preterite form of the subjunctive by the new
complex modal form. The problem is that none of the later northern Early
Middle English texts appear to continue the analytic forms found in the
Rushworth or Lindisfarne glosses. The comparison of the dierent manuscripts
of the Cursor Mundi (Molencki forthc.) shows that in Middle English the rst
analytic forms are found in the later southern versions of the turn of the fteenth
century. They are very common in the classical Middle English literature of
Chaucer and Gower. In Late Middle English and Early Modern English they
become prevalent, almost obligatory:
(18) If I had thought you had bene so well furnished with Booke Cases, I
woulde haue bene better prouided for you.
(Trial of Throckmorton I,74,C1 1554)
(19) The former would have been ruined if he had not saved it by betraying
his party. (History of Charles II 1,I,170 1674)
5. Early Modern English symmetry
Simultaneously, however, parallel pluperfect forms keep occurring, sporadically
even as late as the nineteenth century. Rissanen (1999: 3.3.2) believes that the
pluperfect in the apodosis is particularly common when the protasis is marked
by inverted word order (explained by the symmetry of the two verbal groups),
but in my corpus I have come across many examples in which the pluperfect
main clause follows an if-clause, as well:
(20) If I had died in Guiana, I had not left 300 Marks a Year to my Wife
and Son. (Trials Raleigh I, 215 C2 1606)
(21) If he had lived a little longer, he had broke all their Schemes.
(Roger North Life of the Right Honourable Francis North 326 1742)
(22) Had I yielded to the rst generous impulse how dierent had been
my present situation. (Scott Waverley 23 1814)
Scott, however, is known to have used archaisms deliberately (cf. Bailey 1991: 272).
To a lesser extent, parallel forms are found in present counterfactuals, e.g.:
(23) Mother, I thanke you for the . you send mee, for yf you were not, I
were not able to live.
(Robert Plomptons letter to his mother c1536)
318 RAFA MOLENCKI
(24) Had I a son by thee, the grief were less.
(Marlowe Faustus V.1, p. 81 1596)
All the examples available to me have were, which had become the only
morphologically distinct past subjunctive verb form by Early Modern English.
This is conrmed by Rissanen (1999: 3.3.2), who observed that were seems to
resist best the replacement by auxiliary periphrasis. Indeed, the sequence would
be is extremely rare before the eighteenth century. In most of the examples from
the Early Modern English part of the Helsinki corpus it is found in dependent
speech conditionals, thus probably backshifting will be, e.g.:
(25) Mistresse Winchcombe gaue her great thankes for her fauour, saying,
that if she needed her helpe, she would be bold to send for her.
(Deloney Jack of Newbury 71 1619)
Otherwise, the modal in the apodosis was the standard form of all other verbs,
whose past subjunctives and indicatives no longer diered, as in
(26) For if I toke not better heede, a knaue wold haue my hennes.
(Stevenson Gammer Gurtons Needle 55 1575)
6. Modals in the protasis
The tendency to have a dierent form in the apodosis appears to have prevailed,
at least in the standard language in the modern period. Nevertheless, the parallel-
ism is by no means dead, though a new type has emerged: this time the protasis
copies the verb form of the apodosis both clauses have a three-element
structure of would have + past participle. This does not happen only in non-
standard modern English dialects, as some authors have claimed (Quirk et al.
1985: 1011; Fillmore 1990: 153; Swan 1995: 261), for even in quality newspapers
(both British and American) one can come across numerous examples where the
protasis copies the form of the apodosis, e.g.:
(27) He thought that if he would have been able to freeze-dry one of the
more attractive men, then he would not have had a desire for the
other victims. (UPI Top Stories 1992)
(28) they would not have considered murder if it would have secured
them the chance to bat rst. (The Daily Telegraph 12 Feb 1993)
(29) he avoids direct denunciations of privatisation because he would
make a deal with reformers if it would bring him to power.
(The Times 23 March 1993)
This is particularly common in concessive conditionals introduced by even if:
(30) A vast majority of American women say in a poll released Saturday
that they would never consider having an extramarital aair even
if no one would ever nd out. (UPI Top Stories 1992)
(31) I could have taken more of all this, even if that would have made a
long book even longer. (The Times 9 Sept 1993)
The presence of the modal would in the protasis is by no means a modern
development. It has been found throughout the development of the English
language (cf. Denison 1993: 312313, 1998: 3.6.5.3, who nds the volitional
sense and foreign substratum to have been the main causes). But in the earlier
periods it was mostly used in its original volitional meaning, whereas in the
modern examples given above it appears to be a fully grammaticalized form,
analogous to and parallel with the form of the apodosis (cf. Molencki
1999: 4.3.2). The availability of the grammaticalized would + (have) structure
following if in reported questions as in:
(32) Iohn Frenchan, went to the King and craued his Passe for England,
who very courteously dema
~
ded of vs if we would serue himin his wars.
(Robert Coverte A Trve and Almost Incredible Report of an English-
man 41 1612)
may have encouraged the use of would in protases as the analogical factor. This
analogy with interrogative structures extends also to the protases with inverted
word order (already found in Old English), as in
(33) Had he gotten them (which was his aime) he had don his purpose.
(John Pinneys letter to his daughter Hester, 16 August 1688)
or the etymology of the if-equivalents in numerous languages (e.g. Russian or
Polish jesli < jest-li?, i.e. is +interrogative particle).
In Old English protases wolde is found mostly with the volitional sense:
(34) ond gif heo Ongolcynne lifes weg bodigan ne woldon, t
and if they to-English-race lifes way preach not would that
heo onne wron urh heora honda deaes wrc rowigende.
they then were through their hands deaths misery suering
and if they would not preach the way of life to the English, they
would suer the penalty of death at their hands
(Bede 102.23 late 9th c.)
320 RAFA MOLENCKI
Yet in Late Old English and Early Middle English we nd more and more
examples, where wolde is clearly non-volitional or at least ambiguous. As wolde
was becoming increasingly common in apodoses, new parallelism appeared:
(35) u geswore Apollonio, gif he wolde gehirsumian minum willan
thou swore to-Apollonius if he would obey my will
on lare, t u woldest him geinnian swa hwt swa seo s
in doctrine that thou wouldst him restore whatever the sea
him tbrd.
him took-away
You have sworn Apollonius that if he obeyed my will concerning
doctrine, you would restore him whatever the sea took away from him
(Apollonius of Tyre 34.26 mid-11th c.)
(36) Foram God sylfa behet synfullum mannum t he wolde
for-this God self promised sinful men that he would
miltsian, gyf hi woldon earnian
be-merciful if they would deserve
For this reason God himself promised sinful people that he would show
mercy if they deserved it (Wulfstan Homilies 210.190 mid-11th c.)
(37) a cydde man into re scipfyrde. et hi mann eae
then made-known one to the eet that them one easily
befaran mihte. gif man ymbe beon wolde.
surround might if one around be would
Then information was brought to the eet that they [Wulfnoths
ships] could easily be surrounded if the opportunity were seized
(transl. G. N. Garmonsway) (Chronicle 138.19 year 1009)
(38) o cneu seint iohan. at gif he wolde olen at te king
then knew Saint John that if he would suer that the king
drige his unriht he mihte liuen and ben him lief and
commit his injustice he might live and be him friendly and
wur. ac gif he wolde folgen rihtwisnesse he sholde erfore
worthy but if he would follow righteousness he should therefore
his lif forleten and swo dide atten ende.
his life abandon and so did at end
Then St. John knew that if he allowed the king to commit his
injustice, he might stay alive and be friendly and dear to him, but if
he were to follow righteousness, then he would lose his life, and
did so in the end (Trinity Homilies 139 a1225)
(39) As if a lond wolde bere good corn wiowte tylyng and donghyng
erof, it were but ydel to traueyle [work] erfore, whonne it encressu
not e fruyt. (Wyclie Sermons P I,588 a1425)
(40) & [=if] he wolde not a followed me, I wolde haue retourned ageyn
Whereby I shulde in no wyse haue fallen in this daungier.
(Earl Rivers, The Cordyal 79,12 c1479)
(37) and (39) are particularly remarkable, as the bleached wolde occurs only in
the protasis and additionally (39) has an inanimate subject. More and more
instances of clearly grammaticalized would appear in Early Modern English, e.g.:
(41) If the world would have begunne as I would have wished.
(More Richard III 235 1513 (1641) after OED)
(42) he was soe gredy on his bocke, that yf his master wold not have beaten
him, yf he could not say his lesson well, he wold have wepte and
suobbed more than yf he had byne beaten.
(Biography of Forman 11 1600)
Once the structure became well established in counterfactual conditionals, its
usage was extended to semantically related constructions such as optative wishes
or hypothetical comparatives, which also refer to counterfactual situations, e.g.:
(43) I wish my mony would have extended itself into a larger maner, for it
may be beleft I have but three shillinges to keep me untill our Lady
Day. (Elizabeth Oxindens letter to her mother, 25 Feb 1666)
(44) I wish, said he, brother, you would have conned your care to
your own daughter, and never have troubled yourself with my son
(Fielding Tom Jones xiv.viii.231 1749)
The concordancing program has provided me with quite a few recent counter-
parts, e.g.:
(45) I wish the home team would have won today, but theres always
tomorrow. (UPI Top Stories 1992)
(46) Looking back, I wish I would have known what the appropriate
student/professor relationship was. (Stanford Daily 2 June 1995)
All those very early examples above, where would appears to be deprived of the
volitional meaning altogether, indicate that the construction may not be so new
and not necessarily made in America as Fillmore (1990: 153) thinks. Thus
English appears to have parallel forms again, but this time if +modal +innitive
322 RAFA MOLENCKI
(protasis), modal + innitive (apodosis) for counterfactuals with present time
reference, and if + modal + perfect innitive (protasis), modal + perfect innitive
(apodosis) for past time, and such forms are spreading to the despair of normativists.
7. Other languages
An interesting phenomenon concerning counterfactual constructions can be
observed in a close cognate of English, viz. Modern Dutch, where the parallel
and asymmetrical patterns appear to be in free variation like in Early Modern
English. Wekker (1991: 140142) discusses the alternation between the structures
with the auxiliary modal zou (=should) +present or perfect innitive (analogous
to English would+present or perfect innitive) and those with the simple past or
the pluperfect in Modern Dutch in present and past counterfactuals, respectively.
All four combinations of +zou and -zou structures are available in protases and
apodoses, though Dutch s [counterfactuals] favour the use of the
pluperfect structure. Wekker complains that Dutch grammarians do not have
much to say about the dierence, but he himself believes that the presence of
zou in the protasis leaves it open whether the proposition is really false or not,
whereas the event expressed by the past tense or pluperfect is contrary to fact.
The Early Modern English data, however, are too scarce to draw similar
conclusions.
Discussing the development of Spanish conditionals, Penny (1991: 205)
speaks of a (possibly universal) tendency for the same verb-form to appear
in both the apodosis and the protasis of conditional sentences. Also in Harris
and Vincent (1988: 72) we learn that language purists in various Romance
languages strongly oppose the parallel usages of verb forms in protases and
apodoses in colloquial speech (despite continual denunciation by prescriptive
grammarians one nds morphological harmony between the two parts of modal
conditional sentences). Interestingly, all these parallel verbal forms were derived
from dierent sources. Only Sicilian continues the classical Latin usage, while
the other languages developed new conditional forms:
(47) Italian: conditional
se verrebbero ci aiuterebbero
if they came (would come) they would help us
(48) Sicilian: archaic past subjunctive
vivissi si ci fussi acqua
I would drink if there was any water
(49) Italian: imperfect indicative
se mi lasciavi lass, era tanto meglio
if you had left me up there, it would have been a lot better
(50) French: perfect conditional
je laurais pas fait si jaurait su
I wouldnt have done it if I would have known
(after Harris and Vincent 1988: 240, 304)
Similar trends can be observed in as dierent languages as e.g. German, Baltic,
Slavonic, Hungarian, e.g.:
(51) Polish
Panie, gdybys tu by, nie umarby
Lord if-coNb.cii1ic-:is. here was, not died-coNb.cii1ic
brat mj. (John 11,21)
brother mine
Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died
(52) Hungarian
Ha jtt volna lttam volna.
if came-3sc be(coNb) saw-1sc be(coNb)
If s/he had come I would have seen him/her
(after Haiman 1985: 54)
In all these languages, however, we nd only partial parallelism (only the
protasis is marked with an IF word); but there are many languages (Papuan,
Australian, Moroccan Arabic, Hausa, Yoruba, Swahili) where the parallelism is
complete, morphologically indistinguishable: the parallelism is taken to an
extreme in those languages where protasis and apodosis are formally indistin-
guishable: not only are both inected with the same irrealis particle or verbal
desinence, but neither clause has any particle analogous to either if or then
(Haiman 1985: 51), e.g. in Daga used in Papua-New Guinea:
(53) Ya wada-nege-po, ya anu-po.
not say-me-ir:i, not know-ir:i
if s/he hadnt told me, I wouldnt know
(after Murane 1974: 259)
There are languages in which the irrealis marker may appear in both protasis and
apodosis or in either of them. According to Haiman (1985: 8485) hypothetical
and given conditionals are not usually characterized by such thorough morpho-
logical parallelism between protasis and apodosis in most languages; on the other
324 RAFA MOLENCKI
hand, counterfactual conditionals often are. To the question why counterfactual
protases and apodoses are morphologically symmetrical, why we have tense
agreement or what might be called discontinuous grammaticalization across
clauses, the commonsense answer is simply that both are counterfactual the
epistemic stance for both protasis and apodosis is basically the same. Why then
should we have two dierent exponents? But Haiman (1985: 85) believes such
argumentation is insucient, as we nd a similar case with hypotheticals, where
protases and apodoses are more often dierent.
8. Present-day English variation in the protasis
On the other hand, where there are dierences between the morphosyntactic
marking between the two clauses one might argue, following Haiman (1985: 56),
that since protasis and apodosis agree in mood anyway, the expression of the
mood in the rst is frequently omitted, which might be explained by the laws
of economy in language. Hence we nd a canonical Modern English pluperfect,
deprived of modality, or even the simple preterite form for past counterfactuals
(Quirk et al. 1985: 1012), which is becoming more and more common in
colloquial English, as in
(54) If she was near to me, Id have done to her what Arthur Jackson did
to Theresa Saldana. (UPI Top Stories 1992)
I will only partially agree with Haiman (1985: 252) that the symmetry is
destroyed for essentially economic reasons. I believe that a more salient reason
for the apodosis to have a dierent form is the fact that its epistemic stance is
more remote than that of the protasis. The protasis of a counterfactual conditional
sets up the imaginary world in which the apodosis is true (cf. James 1982: 378),
which consequently is less real (or more counterfactual) than the if-clause,
whence the need for its higher degree of modality cross-linguistically the
counterfactual is a highly marked category. As Haiman (1985: 57) admits, the
protasis creates a set of irrealis worlds and the apodosis represents a proposition
whose validity is asserted in the framework of those worlds alone. In this sense
the apodosis agrees in mood with the protasis. The problem is also
discussed within the theory of possible worlds in Dancygier and Sweetser (1994)
they call it mental space embedding: the apodosis being derived from the
protasis is true in the same space in which the protasis is true.
Some English speakers, apparently unhappy with the demodalized pluperfect
form, have one more variant of the protasis, namely an extra have intervening
between the auxiliary had and the past participle (cf. Denison 1993: 356358,
1998: 3.3.2.5):
(55) If we hadntve met Harry, where would we be now?
(example from Fillmore 1990: 139)
Various explanations of this peculiar structure have been oered, from phonetic
harmony (three-element verb form in both clauses), psychological (Boyland
1995), and morphosyntactic (the /6v/ sequence being the marker of irreality) to
foreign inuences. The search of earlier English texts has provided me with
some remarkably early instances from the times when the subjunctive was
disappearing:
(56) For had nott yit that danger have been, I mygh yit have ben at home.
(Paston Letters 5.328 1475)
(57) had tybert the catte haue ben there, he shold also somwhat haue
sured. (Caxton Reynard 46 1483)
Curiously enough, all of the modications (which in the light of the historical
data are not new at all, as might be inferred from the fact that only more recent
grammars of English take account of them) concern the past counterfactual
protasis only. Since the disappearance of the pluperfect from the apodosis,
speakers of none of the English dialects have altered its structure: the modal
(would) +ve+past participle, which appears to have satised the need for having
a distinct, inherently counterfactual form in the language. Being less counter-
factual, the protasis has been vacillating between parallel or nearly parallel forms
(if we would have done; if we had have done) and the demodalized pluperfect or
even pure preterite (if we had done; if we did). We have some evidence that all
these forms must have coexisted in spoken English since Late Middle English.
The paucity of Early Modern English examples of the variants at the expense of
the standard if we had done can be explained by very strong authority on the
part of prescriptivists and lexicographers, who were imposing the only correct
form in numerous school grammars. Obviously, due to increasing standardiza-
tion, morphosyntactic change must have been much slower than in the pre-mass
media past. However, owing to the recent non-prescriptive approach to the study
of language and even to language teaching, one can nd more and more
examples of variation in expressing past counterfactual conditionals, which is
evidence of the fact that the struggle between parallelism and asymmetry is by
no means over.
326 RAFA MOLENCKI
Texts
Bately, J. (ed.). 1980. The Old English Orosius [EETS S. S.6]. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bethurum, D. (ed.). 1957. The Homilies of Wulfstan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Blake, N. F. (ed.). 1970. Caxtons History of Reynard the Fox [EETS 263]. Oxford:
Einenkel, E. (ed.). 1884. The Life of Saint Katherine [EETS 80]. London: N. Trbner and
Co.
Garmonsway, G. N. (ed.). 1972. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London and New York: Dent
and Dutton.
Goolden, P. (ed.). 1958. The Old English Apollonius of Tyre. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Horrall, S. M. (ed.). 1978. The Southern Version of Cursor Mundi. Ottawa: The University
of Ottawa Press.
Miller, T. (ed.). 1890. The Old English Version of Bedes Ecclesiastical History of the
English People [EETS 95, 96], London: N. Trbner and Co.
Morris, R. (ed.). 18741893. Cursor mundi. A Northumbrian Poem of the XIVth Century in
four Versions [EETS 57, 59, 62, 66, 68], 3 vols. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trbner
& Co.
Plummer, Ch. (ed.). 1892. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel with Supplementary
Extracts from Others. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Electronic corpora
CD-ROMS
The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph 1 January 199331 January 1993 on
CD-ROM. Distributed by Chadwyck Healey, produced by FT Prole.
Helsinki Corpus. Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991 prepared
by Matti Rissanen and Ossi Ihalainen et al. University of Helsinki [available on-
line],
OED. 1991. Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edition. [available on-line],
The Times and The Sunday Times 1993 on CD-ROM. Distributed by Chadwyck-Healey,
produced by FT Prole.
Internet
Stanford University, Stanford, California
Academic Text Service. ats@lists.stanford.edu
University of Michigan
Middle English: http://www.hti.umich.edu/english/mideng
Early Modern English: http://www.hti.umich.edu/dict/memem
University of Virginia
Middle English: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/eng-on.html
Modern English: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/modeng/modeng0.browsw.html
Henry Fielding Tom Jones gopher://gopher.vt.edu: 10010/02/82/1
References
Bailey, R. W. 1991. Images of English. A Cultural History of the Language. Cambridge:
Behaghel, O. 192332. Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung, 4 vols. Heidel-
berg: Winter.
Behre, F. 1934. The Subjunctive in Old English Poetry. Gteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri
Aktiebolag.
Bolinger, D. 1977. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.
Boyland, J. T. 1995. A corpus study of would + have + past participle constructions in
English: Grammaticalization in progress? Paper presented at 12 ICHL in Manches-
ter, England in August 1995.
Campbell, A. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dahl, . 1997. The relation between past time reference and counterfactuality: A new
look. In On Conditionals Again, A. Athanasiadou and R. Dirven (eds), 97114.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dancygier, B. and Sweetser E. 1994. Conditionals: reassessing structure-function relationship.
Unpublished Ms., University of California at Berkeley.
Denison, D. 1993. English Historical Syntax. London: Longman.
Denison, D. 1998. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. IV,
S. Romaine (ed.), 92329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Ch. J. 1990. Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional
sentences. In Chicago Linguistic Society 26, M. Ziolkowski, M. Noske and K.
Deaton (eds): 137162.
Fischer, O. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. II, N.
Blake (ed.), 207408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, M. and Vincent, N. (eds). 1988. The Romance Languages. London: Routledge.
James, D. 1982. Past tense and the hypothetical. A cross-linguistic study. Studies in
Language 6.3: 375403.
Kyt, M. (ed.). 1993. Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English
Texts: Coding Conventions and Lists of Source Texts [2nd edition]. Helsinki:
University of Helsinki.
328 RAFA MOLENCKI
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English Syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Molencki, R. 1998. Modals in past counterfactual protases. In English Historical
Linguistics 1996, J. Fisiak and M. Krygier (eds), 241251. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Molencki, R. 1999. A History of English Counterfactuals. Katowice: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu S
laskiego.
Molencki, R. forthcoming. Counterfactuals in the dierent manuscripts of the Cursor
Mundi. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 101.
Murane, E. 1974. Daga Grammar. Norman/Oklahoma: SIL.
Mustanoja, T. 1960. Middle English Syntax. Mmoires de la Socit Nophilologique de
Helsinki 23. Helsinki: Socit Nophilologique.
Penny, R. 1991. A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rissanen, M. 1999. Syntax In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. III,
R. Lass (ed.), 187331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simpson, J. A., Simon, E. and Weiner, Ch. (eds). 1989. Oxford English Dictionary [2nd
edition]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Swan, M. 1995. Practical English Usage [2nd edition]. London: Longman.
Visser, F. Th. 19631973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language [3 parts in 4
vols]. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Wekker, H. 1991. Modality, creolization and semantic transparency In Problems in the
Modality of Natural Language, P. Kakietek (ed.), 137145. Opole: The Pedagogical
University of Opole.
Wright, J. 1954. A Grammar of the Gothic Language [2nd edition revised by O. L. Sayce].
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
The grammaticalization of the present perfect
in English
Tracks of change and continuity in a linguistic enclave
Sali A. Tagliamonte
University of York
1. Introduction
In this paper, I examine the competition of variant forms used in
contexts and the multiple constraints conditioning them. The analysis
is innovative in that it draws on data from a unique socio-cultural context
Saman English a classic linguistic enclave, or relic area (Anttila 1989: 294;
Hock 1986: 442). Such areas, because of their peripheral geographic location or
isolated social and/or political circumstances, tend to preserve older features,
allowing for a reconstruction of the past. The results of the analysis shed light on
the longitudinal development of the present perfect in English and provide some
steps toward a fuller integration of synchronic sociolinguistic research using a
variationist approach, into research on grammaticalization (cf. Hopper and
Traugott 1993: 30).
Linguistic change which results in grammaticalization can be identied by
the evolution of lexical items into grammatical forms (Meillet 1912: 131) and by
the fact that it is subject to certain general processes and mechanisms of change
(Traugott and Heine 1991: 3). Such an evolution may go on for centuries, as
linguistic forms or structures pass through a long series of transitions forming a
path or trajectory. Hopper (1991: 2231) has put forward a number of heuristic
diagnostics which identify stages in the development in such grammaticalization
pathways, i.e. from less to more grammaticalized. In the rst instance, such a
process involves a good deal of variation due to the fact that emerging forms
may co-exist with, and interact with an already existing layer of functionally
equivalent ones (Hopper and Traugott 1993: 22) the principle of layering.
330 SALI A. TAGLIAMONTE
This variability can provide a dynamic representation of the dierent degrees of
grammaticalization attained by the dierent forms. As grammaticalization pro-
ceeds, the number of formal choices gets smaller and the survivors take on more
general grammatical meanings. This is identied as specialization (Hopper and
Traugott 1993: 25). At the same time the meaning and function of a grammatical
form is necessarily linked to its lexical past. Thus, some traces of the original
meaning of a grammaticalizing form tend to remain. This is known as per-
sistence (Hopper and Traugott 1993: 28). At any stage, however, linguistic
peculiarities (e.g. semantic associations, collocation patterns, the eect of one
linguistic context or another, etc.) can be correlated with the evolving grammati-
cal morphemes in order to provide crucial keys to viewing the diachronic process
of grammaticalization in synchronic data (Traugott and Heine 1991: 6).
The present perfect presents a particularly opportune place for exploring these
aspects of grammaticalization. In contemporary prescriptive English grammar the
present perfect is typically equated with the morphosyntactic construction have+
past participle, as exemplied with data from Saman English in (1).
(1) Auxiliary have +past participle:
a. Some of them have regretted it already. Yes, many of em have
regret it already. (006/171173)
1
b. That was the rst they learnt me and Im old and it have re-
mained here. (002/1156)
c. I have sold two bale of yams for three dollars. Ive sold
seven grain for a cent. (021/71517)
d. Many of em have died. (003/015)
e. It been so long Ive forgotten. (020/87)
f. No, they dont know that they immigrants. Because the old
people have died out.
However, the present perfect is widely attested as being interchangeable with the
, both in contemporary (Elsness 1996: 237335; Mencken 1962: 533;
Vanneck 1955: 237) as well as in historical varieties of English (Brunner
1963: 86; Elsness 1996: 79229; Fridn 1948: 27; Mitchell 1985: 274; Strang
1970: 149; Traugott 1992: 190), as in (2).
(2) Preterite:
a. They all died out already. (013/80)
b. But I dont know what took her now. (015/245)
c. They didnt send it to me yet. (022/390)
d. They killed a lot that time, yes they killed a lot. But today we
calmed o and everything and got calm. (002/116)
THE GRAMMATICALIZATION OF THE PRESENT PERFECT 331
Moreover, world-wide reports of contemporary vernacular English usage attest
to the presence of additional forms for the same function:
2
lone past participles,
3
as in (3), pre-verbal been, as in (4), pre-verbal done, as in (5), auxiliary be
(instead of have) as in (6), entirely unmarked verbs (referred to here as verb
stems) as in (7), aint, as in (8), and even a construction that Visser (1970: 2209)
refers to as a three-verb cluster, as in (9).
(3) Lone past participles:
a. She never been a person to walk (002/349)
b. They called him yonder. He been there, I dont know for
what. (001/189)
c. She gone to San Martin. (005/114)
(4) Pre-verbal been:
a. She been married. (QFN/112)
b. We all been raised up speaking English. (010/599)
c. They been xing the road. (015/221)
(5) Pre-verbal done:
a. Plenty done gone and theys lose their life. (005/476)
b. I done been to Miami, Hollywood (010/1032)
c. So much trouble done pass. (002/1134)
(6) Auxiliary be +past participle:
a. Im pass a lot of trouble. (002/374)
b. This country is all descended from the old immigrants.
(005/17)
c. Im forgot all them things. (015/257)
d. If a child is taken measles, and you dont know you get that
and steep it and give them that the next morning. (002/523)
(7) Verb stems:
a. I had twelve children, but only twelve of em what come to be
mothers and fathers of children. (006/445)
b. I never like the city. (013/113)
c. I never been in one of that; everything I look from far.
(005/584)
d. All them die away. (005/663)
(8) Aint +past participle/past tense:
a. He aint wrote yet. (019/2367)
b. She aint married no-one yet. (005/160)
c. I aint got nothing to do. (011/1143)
d. Since we move, I aint had to light it once . (019/52930)
e. I came in last Friday, and I aint been nowhere (002/1339)
(9) Three verb cluster with auxiliary be:
a. They aint paid us yet and Im done spent plenty money with
the documents. (006/1556)
b. Im done been over there plenty, but I dont like it.
(005/3123)
This variability in present perfect forms has been noted extensively in contempo-
rary dialects (Abbott 1957; Alexander 1926; Fries 1940: 5971; Kallen 1989,
1990; Marckwardt 1958: 148150; McDavid and McDavid 1986; Mencken
1962: 525542; Noseworthy 1972). Explanations typically invoke the loss of the
auxiliary (Menner 1926: 238; Wright 18981905: 298), however some also claim
there is an encroachment of the on the preterite (Menner 1926: 238),
loss of the distinction between preterite and perfect (Vanneck 1955: 234), and
even the use of forms for an entirely dierent function (e.g. a generalized past
marker). Since variability seems robust, the precise stage of development of the
present perfect either with respect to its meaning or its degree of grammatical-
ization remains an open question.
A longitudinal approach to the present perfect in English is crucial in order
to contextualize this variability. Historical examinations of it are by now
extensive in the literature (e.g. Brinton 1988, 1994; Curme 1977; Denison 1993;
Elsness 1996; Fridn 1948; Mitchell 1985; Rydn and Brorstrm 1987; Traugott
1992; Visser 1970). All of them report extensive variability in form and function
since the Old English period. Similar variability in the perfect has been docu-
mented in many other languages where somewhat parallel trajectories of
grammaticalization are attested, including modern Greek, Latin, the Germanic
languages (Traugott 1972), and Romance (Harris 1982; Vincent 1982). This
suggests that this area of the grammar may also be a fruitful location for further
examination with respect to the putative universal pathways of grammatical-
ization, as outlined in Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994).
4
In the present paper I approach the extensive variability of present perfect
constructions in Saman English, assuming that their patterning can be used to
infer some principles underlying their uses. I then interpret the results from the
perspective of grammaticalization theory, taking into account diachronic linguis-
tic information in the literature.
2. The data
Saman is a small village in a remote area of the Dominican Republic, where an
oshoot of African American Vernacular English has been spoken since the
mid-nineteenth century. The corpus comprises approximately 160,000 words
from informal interviews conducted with 21 speakers from the oldest generation
of the community in 1981, all of whom were native, mostly monolingual,
speakers of English in the midst of a Hispanic majority (Poplack and Sankoff
1987). The sociohistorical circumstances under which these people had retained
their variety of English include the well-established conditions for longitudinal
continuity, including physical contact, frequency of interaction, prestige and other
factors (Pousada and Poplack 1982; Thomason and Kaufman 1988). Previous
linguistic research in a number of areas of the tense/aspect system (Poplack and
Sanko 1987; Poplack and Tagliamonte 1989; Tagliamonte 1991; Tagliamonte
and Poplack 1988) and on three features of nominal morpohology (Poplack and
Tagliamonte 1994; Tagliamonte and Poplack 1993; Tagliamonte, Poplack and
Eze 1997) have led to the conclusion that Saman English represents African
American English as it was spoken in the mid-nineteenth century and that it has
not been aected by Spanish as spoken on the greater island. The connection
has been used to argue against the creole origins hypothesis of African American
English and to show that the latter variety has changed little since the nineteenth
century. Comparison of these data with other communities populated by African
Americans which did not evolve in a Hispanic context, i.e. Nova Scotia, Canada,
(Poplack and Tagliamonte 1991, 1994), as well as other non-standard English
vernaculars, have led to the conclusion that the patterns found in Saman can be
traced to non-standard varieties of English and that they developed by the same
processes which mark the history of the English language.
5
Saman English, illustrated in (1)(9), exhibits an extensive inventory of
present perfect constructions. None of these strategies are unique to Saman
English, as all of them are attested in widely-separated contemporary English
vernaculars, e.g. United States (Christian, Wolfram and Dube 1988: 85109;
Feagin 1979: 8189), Newfoundland (Noseworthy 1972: 1924), Tristan da Cunha
(Scur 1974), the Shetland Islands (Melchers 1992), and Ireland (Filppula 1996;
Harris 1984; Kallen 1989, 1990). In what follows I attempt to explain this robust
variability. Is it indicative of aberrant rendition of the English present perfect?
Does it herald the incipient demise of the present perfect in this community?
Can it be explained as continuity of earlier patterns in English? Might the
variability reect a stage in the grammaticalization of the present perfect with the
characteristic patterning typical of this process? First, I turn to a consideration of
these data from an historical perspective.
3. Historical development of the perfect in English
In Old English, there were only two tenses: past and non-past. Non-past served
for durative and non-durative present and future reference. The past covered
everything else not only what is represented by the simple past of today, but
also durative past time (e.g. past progressive), as well as the present perfect and
of the contemporary system (Strang 1970: 311). In fact, most
commentators acknowledge that the simple and present perfect were
interchangeable in most contexts, including those where either one, or the other
alone would be required in contemporary usage. In one recent discussion,
Denison (1993: 352) provides examples in which the present perfect appears to
be commuting with a simple past based on parallelism with preterite usage and
adverbial collocation patterns. This can be seen in (10a), where the simple past
tense inection marks a function that today would be expressed with the
auxiliary+past participle/past tense form, attested in the present perfect. The Old
English data is comparable with (10bc) from Saman, where there is an
inected preterite form of the verb, and is also suggested in (10de).
6
(10) a. Fder min, se tima com
Father mine, that time came.
Father, the time has come. (Traugott 1992: 183)
b. She had plenty time yonder and now she came to the capital to
live. (002/447)
c. God left me here for some purpose. (002/390)
d. I come from that now. (006/1868)
e. The crop just come in now. (004/178)
During the change from Old to Middle English this two-tense (past vs. non-past)
inectional verb system underwent substantial elaboration (Strang 1970: 98).
3.1 Elaboration of the verb phrase
One of the most important changes that took place was the development of
analytic morphology within the verb phrase, in addition to the suxal inection
on the main verb, to mark tense and/or aspect distinctions. This development was
in contrast with the original, and far more general, distribution of past tense
forms. A number of additional periphrastic constructions came to alternate with
the preterite.
One of the morphosyntactic developments during this period was the
emergence of the present perfect tense. While periphrastic constructions with the
verb habban were present in Old English (Mitchell 1985: 723), the characteristic
perfect functional distinctions did not become well established until the Middle
English period and beyond (Denison 1993: 352; Mitchell 1985: 372; Visser
1970: 2191). The development of the contemporary functions, leading to xed
word order, aspectual distinctions and specic collocation patterns, etc., only
gradually evolved over the ensuing centuries (see e.g. Elsness 1996). According
to some commentators the rise of the modern perfect can be described as
gradual diusion into more and more linguistic environments, (Harris
1984: 322), though not necessarily to the same extent in all varieties of English.
3.2 The use of the verb have
The original source of present perfect is traced to the stative main verb have
(meaning possess), as in (11a), which was re-analyzed as an auxiliary verb
combining with a transitive main verb, as in (11b) (e.g. Fridn 1948: 4041;
Jespersen 1909/1949: IV2930; Mitchell 1985: 724, 7268; Mustanoja
1960: 500501; Traugott 1992: 192; Visser 1970: 21892192, 20012003):
(11) a. I [
VP
[
V
have] [[
NP
the letter] [
A
written] (i.e. in a written state)
b. I [
VP
[have [
V
written [
NP
the letter]]
Although the rst attestation of have +past participle of an intransitive verb has
been documented to 1096, the development of the contemporary perfect category
is traced to the Middle English period, when have started spreading to other VP
types. During the same time period have and be are said to have competed as
auxiliaries for the new category (Denison 1993: 358; Fridn 1948: 30117; Strang
1970: 149), as in (12).
(12) a. He took his wyf to kepe whan he is gon vs. and also to han gon
to solitarie exil
b. The yonge sonne hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne vs. as
rody and bright as dooth the yonge sonne that in the Ramis foure
degrees up ronne
(All from Chaucer, (Brunner 1963: 87))
Note how (12ab) compare with (12c) from Saman:
c. Im never been in prison. Never in my life, Ive been in prison.
(021/9989)
A number of commentators mention that the auxiliary be tended to be used with
mutative verbs (Denison 1993: 359; Mustanoja 1960: 500).
7
Notice how (13a)
from Saman compares with (13b) reported in Fridn (1948: 112).
(13) a. The town is changed. The town Saman is not Saman no
more. (003/467)
b. These days are now chaunged. (Spenser Faerie 4.4.I.3)
However, have gradually generalized to more and more verbs and eventually
prevailed over be (Curme 1977: 359). Denison (1993: 344) describes the history
of perfect be in English as a continuous retreat in the face of the advancing
have perfect.
3.3 Three verb clusters
During the Middle English period a three-verb structure (Visser 1970: 2209)
also developed, as illustrated in (14).
(14) And many other false abusion. The Paip (=Pope) hes done invent.
(Traugott 1972: 146)
While there are no examples of a three-verb cluster with have in Saman, there
are four examples with auxiliary be, as in (15) (see also (9)), which appear in the
same discourse contexts as have.
(15) I have seen two times. The time pass and the time now. Im done
bought meat twelve cent a pound. And Im done bought sh four
cents a pound. I have bought a cow for eight dollars. (021/421)
3.4 Unmarked participles
Traugott (1972: 146) also notes that the main verb in the three-verb cluster may
not receive an overt inection, as in (14) above. In Saman English the main verb
may also occur without the inection typical of the past participle, as in (16):
(16) a. And he told me that he had done pass through them English
books. (006/314)
b. But the wind and the rain has wash them away.
(020/2624)
c. There are many others that have pass through normal school
and they speaks their English correct. (006/340)
3.5 Lone past participle
By the mid-nineteenth century attestations of a lone past participle in present
perfect contexts (Visser 1970: 1298), as in (17ab), become prevalent, although
they apparently existed earlier in the nineteenth century, as in (17cd) (Denison
1998). Visser (1970: 1298) suggests they may be forerunners of the contemporary
constructions; however, they may also be part of a broader phenomenon in which
a string may be ellipted, most often in clause-initial position (Denison 1998).
They were plentiful in many early twentieth century English dialects, both
American (Atwood 1953: 43), and British (Wright 18981905: 298). Compare
Saman English where the same lexical verbs appear as lone past participle,
8
as
in (18), (see also (3ac)), and occasionally with a lexically unrealized subject at
the beginning of a clause, as in (18c).
(17) a. They never got nothing but fourteen shilling and I seen um
both a-hanging in chains by Wisbeach river.
[c. 1870 Ch. Kingsley, Alton Locke (Collines) 235]
b. Im better than the best collect he ever done business with.
[c. 1872 Shaw, Widowers Houses 2.33]
c. Mrs. Novello seen Altam and his Wife?
[c. 1818 Keats, Letters 98 p. 254 (18 Dec.)] (Denison 1998: 143)
d. I am an old man and many wonders seen and heard.
[c. 1300 Arth. and M. 2049]
(18) a. I never seen him. (001/919)
b. They done plenty things. (P/206)
c. I cant remember, been so long that Ive forgotten.
3.6 Summary
A general overview of the relevant diachrony of the present perfect can be
summarized in ve main points:
1. The present perfect has been realized variably by preterite and perfect
surface forms in English since its inception (Brunner 1963; Denison 1993;
Fridn 1948; Menner 1926; Strang 1970; Traugott 1972; Vanneck 1955;
Visser 1970).
2. Variability in these forms was far more extensive during the Middle English
period than in the contemporary standard system (Brunner 1963; Elsness
1996; Fridn 1948; Rydn and Brorstrm 1987; Strang 1970; Traugott 1972;
Visser 1970).
3. The development of analytic morphology in the verb phrase during the
Middle English period led to competition among auxiliaries be, have, and
done to signal present perfect. Much of this variability still persists in non-
standard varieties of contemporary English in North America, in the United
Kingdom and undoubtedly elsewhere (Christian et al. 1988; Curme 1977;
Kallen 1989; 1990; Melchers 1992; Scur 1974; Visser 1970).
4. Lone past participles, specically the three verbs been, done, and seen, have
been attested, particularly since the early nineteenth century, but may have
originated much earlier (Visser 1970).
5. Inection on the main verb was variable in Middle English, at least in the
three verb cluster (Traugott 1972; Visser 1970).
4. Method
An important methodological issue for an analysis of the present perfect is to
identify all the contexts in which its functions are met in discourse. This is
critical in this case where form/function asymmetry is so extensively document-
ed. In any given corpus there may be contexts which embody the functions of
the present perfect, but which are not rendered by the standard morphosyntactic
construction. There may also be contexts in which the standard present perfect
morphology occurs, but which do not meet the semantic function of the contem-
porary system. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that preterite forms will
appear extensively in past temporal reference contexts more generally, but only
a small proportion of these will have a present perfect reading.
In order to identify the specic contexts of present perfect I adopt the
criteria for which there is general consensus in the current literature on this
subject, namely the three basic semantic/pragmatic functions: rsci1:1ivr,
rxirirN1:i, and coN1iNc:1ivr (Bauer 1970; Brinton 1988: 1015; Comrie
1976: 5265; Fenn 1987: 100131; Leech 1987: 3049; McCawley 1971; Zand-
voort 1932). Basically, the coN1iNc:1ivr irrrc1 makes reference to a time
span throughout which an event or situation obtained, as exemplied earlier in
(1ab); the rxirirN1:i irrrc1 refers to a situation which has occurred once
or repeatedly before the present, as in (1cd); and the rsci1:1ivr irrrc1
refers to a past situation that has led to some present result or state, as in (1e-f).
All these distinctions have been subsumed under a unifying category labeled the
present perfect in English, which identies some state at speech time while at the
same time involving the experience of past events (Fenn 1987: 136). Innovative
in this research is the fact that the analysis is circumscribed to discourse contexts
which meet the functional denition of the present perfect.
9
There were 372 such
contexts in the Saman corpus.
Each context was categorized for a number of features of the linguistic
environment claimed to inuence the occurrence of the present perfect from the
prescriptive and descriptive literature on this subject temporal distance, lexical
aspect, temporal disambiguation, collocation patterns and subject noun. I then
proceeded with statistical examination of the data in order to isolate the factors
which determine the choice of forms in dierent contexts (see also Elsness
1996; Rydn and Brorstrm 1987). In this study, I employed multivariate
analysis, a technique which enables the analyst to model the multiple constraints
on the variability in the data. The advantage of this approach is that it considers
all the relevant parameters simultaneously and calculates which ones are
signicant, to what degree, and perhaps most importantly, the relative patterns of
variability across the categories in each factor.
10
Such a method is particularly
useful in the case of the present perfect where, because of the extensive overlap
between dierent forms, isolated examples of one tendency or the other can
easily be found (cf. Mitchell 1985: 298). Here, I focus on the tendencies embod-
ied in the data as revealed by the distribution of forms and the hierarchy of
constraints for each of the linguistic factors under investigation.
5. Results
5.1 Distributional analysis
Table 1 shows the overall distribution of forms used in present perfect contexts
in the Saman corpus.
11
Note the robust variability amongst preterite morphology, 25%, the have +
past participle construction, 22%, verb stems, 17%, lone past participles, 11%
and auxiliary be, 10%. The relatively balanced frequencies of perfect and
preterite forms, which may be surprising given contemporary prescriptive
grammar, is entirely consistent with earlier stages in the development of the
present perfect, when alternation between preterite and perfect forms was more
uid and where alternations of have and be as auxiliaries and even multiple
auxiliaries are amply attested. Indeed, the localized occurrence of this particular
cohort of forms is consistent with the ve points outlined in Section 3.6 regard-
Table 1. Overall distribution of forms in present perfect contexts in Saman English
Surface morphology: N %
-ed/suppletion
have/has/s +past participle
verb stem
lone past participle
be +past participle
aint +past participle
done +past participle
used to, would, V-ing etc.
three-verb cluster with be
had +past participle
was/got passive
unambiguous present
three-verb cluster with had
93
82
64
40
37
26
08
08
04
04
03
02
01
25
22
17
11
10
07
02
02
01
01
01
00.5
00.3
Total: N 372
ing the history of the perfect.
12
The extent of variability within a highly circum-
scribed area of the grammar in Saman English thus presents a classic case of
grammatical layering whereby a set of forms co-exist within the same
functional domain (Hopper 1991: 23).
13
However, this view of the data only provides us with the relative propor-
tions of forms used in present perfect contexts. As Hopper (1991: 23) points out,
layering can represent a transition from one phase of a developmental trajectory
to another. If so, what might the patterns of variability in this enclave tell us
about linguistic change within the present perfect? Specically, can the factors
which determine the choice of forms shed light on their status and relative
degree of grammaticalization?
14
5.2 Multivariate analysis
In order to assess the grammatical function and/or functions of the forms used in
present perfect contexts in Saman English, each token was coded for a number
of linguistic features. These operationalize, where possible, a number of observa-
tions that have been made regarding the developmental stages of the present
perfect in the literature and test hypotheses made about the distribution of forms
in contemporary varieties, as will be detailed below.
Table 2 shows the results of six independent multivariate analyses of the
contribution of the ve factors (viz. 1rxio:i bis1:Ncr, vrn:i :sirc1,
1rxio:i bis:xnicc:1ioN, coiioc:1ioN vi1n never, and scnrc1
NocN to the probability that each of have, been, aint, be, -ed/or suppletion, and
a verb stem will be used in a present perfect context.
15
Table 2 shows that the two most important factors which underlie the use
of forms in present perfect contexts in Saman English are temporal distance and
verbal aspect. One or the other (or both) are selected as signicant to all forms.
16
5.2.1 Temporal distance
The most fundamental characteristic of present perfect appears to be its associa-
tion with present time. Originally, the simple past tense had covered all aspects
of past time, including reference which brought past time into relation with the
present (Curme 1977: 358). But the gradual shift in emphasis to explicitly past
time that was accorded the preterite led to the need for a distinct strategy to
express relations between present and past time (Curme 1977: 358). In English
there is no tense which is specically associated with a particular point in time.
Indeed, in English, dierential location in time is not typically associated with
any tense, except the present perfect, where it can be predicted to occur under
conditions of recency and current relevance (Dahl 1984: 118).
In Table 2, the constraint hierarchy of the factor of temporal distance
reveals that the closer, or more associated, the event is to present time, the
higher the probability that have or been will occur.
17
However, the predominant
pattern overall is the propensity for use of have, been, aint, and be in present
relevance contexts, all of which are favoured here at .59, .68, .64 and .56
respectively (shaded in Table 2).
18
The fact that the favouring eect of continu-
ing in present contexts is identical across perfect forms, even where this factor
group is not selected as statistically signicant, is actually testimony to the
similarities among them. In contrast, preterite morphology and the verb stem
pattern similarly to each other, and in exactly the opposite way. Both -ed/supple-
tion and the verb stem are favoured in contexts that refer to specically past
time. This distributional patterning suggests that the two may be associated with
the same semantic function.
The pattern of the variants have/been/be contrasts markedly with -ed/supple-
tion and the verb stems (see shading). This suggests that the evolution of the
tense system in Saman English has reached a stage in which the newer layer of
present perfect forms is taking over a present relevance function from the more
T
a
b
l
e
2
.
M
u
l
t
i
v
a
r
i
a
t
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
a
s
s
i
g
n
i
c
a
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
f
o
r
m
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
s
i
n
S
a
m
a
n
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
P
e
r
f
e
c
t
f
o
r
m
s
P
r
e
t
e
r
i
t
f
o
r
m
s
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
o
k
e
n
s
:
3
7
2
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
/
s
e
e
n
/
g
o
n
e
/
d
o
n
e
a
i
n
t
b
e
-
e
d
/
s
u
p
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
v
e
r
b
s
t
e
m
N
s
/
c
e
l
l
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
m
e
a
n
:
.
2
2
.
0
8
.
0
7
.
1
0
.
2
3
.
1
5
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
l
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
a
y
e
a
r
a
g
o
.
3
5
.
3
1
.
4
0
[
.
4
5
]
.
6
6
.
5
5
9
2
w
i
t
h
i
n
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
.
5
2
.
3
5
.
3
7
[
.
4
4
]
.
5
3
.
6
4
1
1
1
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
g
i
n
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
5
9
.
6
8
.
6
4
[
.
5
6
]
.
3
8
.
3
9
1
6
9
R
a
n
g
e
2
4
3
7
2
7
2
8
2
5
A
s
p
e
c
t
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
[
.
5
2
]
[
.
3
7
]
[
.
4
8
}
.
4
1
.
6
1
[
.
4
8
]
1
9
7
m
u
t
a
t
i
v
e
[
.
3
5
]
[
.
6
7
]
[
.
2
8
}
.
7
5
.
2
9
[
.
6
4
]
4
0
s
t
a
t
i
v
e
[
5
2
]
[
.
6
4
]
[
6
0
}
.
5
5
.
4
1
[
.
4
9
]
1
3
5
R
a
n
g
e
3
4
3
2
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
l
d
i
s
a
m
b
i
g
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
d
v
e
r
b
[
.
3
6
]
[
.
6
1
]
.
7
0
[
.
4
7
]
[
.
6
0
]
[
.
5
2
]
6
8
u
n
s
p
e
c
i
e
d
[
.
5
3
]
[
.
4
7
]
.
4
5
[
.
5
1
]
[
.
4
8
]
[
.
5
0
]
3
0
4
R
a
n
g
e
2
5
C
o
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
n
e
v
e
r
n
e
v
e
r
[
.
3
3
]
.
8
9
[
.
1
6
[
[
.
4
7
]
[
.
7
1
]
[
.
4
4
]
3
8
u
n
s
p
e
c
i
e
d
[
.
5
2
]
.
4
4
[
.
5
5
[
[
.
5
0
]
[
.
4
7
]
[
.
5
1
]
3
3
4
R
a
n
g
e
4
5
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
n
o
u
n
p
r
o
n
o
u
n
[
.
4
8
]
[
.
5
1
]
.
5
9
[
.
4
8
]
[
.
5
0
]
[
.
4
9
]
2
6
7
N
P
[
.
5
5
]
[
.
4
8
]
.
2
8
[
.
5
4
]
[
.
4
9
]
[
.
5
3
]
1
0
5
R
a
n
g
e
3
1
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
n
o
t
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
a
n
y
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
:
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
n
o
u
n
.
general preterite. Given the time when Saman English split from African
American English in North America, we may assume that this development was
already in place in the mid-nineteenth century.
5.2.2 Verbal aspect
In the evolution of the present perfect, when the auxiliaries be and have were in
variation, they are said to have been used in contexts with dierent aspectual
readings. Recent research on the early grammaticalization of the present perfect
(Carey 1994, 1995a, 1995b) has demonstrated varying frequencies amongst
dierent types of stative verbs as the new tense category spread to more and
more contexts.
19
Mental state verbs (think, realize etc.) were the rst to favour
the new perfect auxiliary over perception verbs (see, hear etc.), and these two
presumably before NoN-s1:1ivrs (Carey 1994: 110115). According to Rydn
and Brorstrms (1987: 184, 186) detailed study of late Modern English
(17001900), have, rather than be, is highly favoured in iterative contexts. Both
studies reveal that at an earlier stage in the history of the present perfect the
individual forms would have been highly sensitive to verbal aspect.
Because the accepted functions of the perfect in which continuative is
distinct from resultative and experientalare actually a conation of aspect and
pragmatic interpretation,
20
verbs were categorized according to the kinds of
situations they describe. Verbs representing states, either of emotion or attitude,
sensory perception or bodily sensation, as in (19ab) (Quirk et al. 1985: 9496)
were coded as s1:1ivr. Verbs were coded as bxN:xic when they make
reference to events which occurred once (or several times) in the past, as in
(19cd). Verbs involving a transition from one place or condition to another
(Fridn 1948: 57; Mustanoja 1960: 500), as in (20), were treated separately.
(19) a. I have never been yonder. (004/277)
b. You-all have heard about the Old Jericho? (003/101)
c. I have passed a lot of little frights. (002/388)
d. I have been told that if they know you handling money, they
give another price. (010/400)
(20) a. The thing is increased so bad that we dont know. At anytime
somebody could come and even break open your door.
(018/992)
b. Now they have so many houses. They all is made it one
thing. (003/4802)
c. Cause them, now, since the war is got civilize. (018/747)
d. My children, them is mixed up the language. (006/161)
In Bybee et al.s (1994: 6869) account of the grammaticalization of the perfect,
they project an evolution from an early stage in which have gradually replaces
the be auxiliary and then expands to dynamic verbs of all kinds. Complete
generalization of the grammaticalized construction is assumed when it comes to
be used with stative, as well as dynamic predicates.
Table 2 reveals that verbal aspect is indeed highly implicated in the array of
present perfect forms and their distribution, but it is statistically signicant for
only one of the perfect forms auxiliary be which is highly favoured with
mutative verbs at .75 (the underlined box in column under be). Indeed, Denison
(1993: 359) notes that the majority of lexical verbs appearing with the be perfect,
especially after the Old English period, are precisely these mutative verbs. Here,
the Saman English data provides a striking synchronic reex of that earlier
tendency. A similar propensity (though not statistically signicant) can be seen
for been at .67 (underlined), which may provide a hint at the functional charac-
teristics of the latter construction.
On the other hand, the verbs with preterite morphology exhibit a propensity
to occur with dynamic (with a factor weight of .61) rather than with mutative or
stative verbs (with a factor weight of .29 and .41 respectively). The verb stem is
the only other form that is disfavoured with stative verbs (with a factor weight
of .49) revealing another parallel with the preterite forms. However, unlike the
preterite forms, it is highly favoured with mutative verbs suggesting a relatively
circumscribed lexical context for its use.
The perfect cohort in general have, been, aint and be have a high pro-
pensity to occur in stative contexts with favouring factor weights of .52, .64, .60
and .55 respectively (shaded). However, one form of the perfect cohort have
is also favoured with dynamic verbs (.52). As a matter of fact, its probability
of use with dynamic and stative verbs is precisely the same: .52 vs. .52.
21
The generalized use of have in Saman English is consistent with the notion
of bleaching which is said to occur in more fully grammaticalized forms and
corroborates a progression toward a complete generalization of the constructions
with have to stative as well as dynamic predicates indiscriminately (Bybee et al.
1994: 69).
22
5.2.3 Temporal disambiguation
In contemporary English grammar the present perfect is reportedly preferred over
the preterite in contexts where there is a temporal adjunct which refers to an
expanse of time, as in (21a), or those which refer to a period of time that
stretches from a point in the past to the moment of speaking, as in (21bc) (see
Visser 1970: 2192). Increasing specialization of present perfect forms for
situations which not only are located within a period which extends up to speech
time, but which themselves extend up to that point is part of the longitudinal
development of the present perfect in English (Elsness 1996: 359).
(21) a. I got a long time, I aint been over there. (021/913)
b. Ive been teaching since 1924. (002/678)
c. I have live here twenty-one years. I came in the 61.
(019/82)
d. Some of them havent reached yet. (009/346)
In Table 2, however, temporal disambiguation is not selected as signicant to the
occurrence of any form in Saman English, with the exception of aint. The
general lack of signicance of temporal adjuncts may be due to the fact that at
an earlier stage in the development of the present perfect the collocation patterns
typical of those reported for the modern system had not yet developed. Since
adverbs may shift from use with preterite to use with perfect in the process of
grammaticalization (Denison 1993: 366), these data may simply represent a stage
in-between the two. The pronounced eect with aint, as in (22), may simply be
a reection of these earlier patterns with a form which is itself an archaic British
dialect feature (Trudgill 1990: 97).
(22) a. They aint paid us yet. (011/155)
b. He aint got long dead. (021/1357)
c. I got a good while, I aint been over there. (021/911)
5.2.4 Collocation with never
Interestingly, there is one particular collocation pattern which is attested from the
Middle English period. When the present perfect was developing, constructions
with never (which had apparently favoured the simple past earlier on [Denison
1993: 366; Fridn 1948: 31]) favoured the incoming present perfect morphemes,
as in (23) [see also (3a), (7bc)], (Visser 1970: 755). This was apparently due to
the fact that the temporal specication of never made additional reference to time
redundant (Jespersen 1990/1949: IV: 64). This disambiguation eect may explain
the absence of the auxiliary verb in (23).
(23) a. I never like the city. (014/984)
b. I never been to school. (021/525)
c. I never had to beat them [my children]. Only speak with
them. (019/884)
Since use of the lexical item never was frequent in these materials, it could be
treated separately. Table 2 also reveals that been is the only preterite form which
is favoured in the context of never, with a factor weight of .89. For the preterite,
the same constraint hierarchy is observed, but the factor is not signicant. This
suggests that the pattern is a latent one and corroborates the hypothesis that it is
a receding pattern. For been on the other hand, collocation with never is the most
signicant factor inuencing its selection, with a range of 45. Based on the
strength of this eect in Saman English, I surmise that the original association
of never with the new perfect forms coupled with its additional temporal
specication may have led to the collocation pattern with lone past participle
constructions. Here, we may be observing a reex of this older pattern.
5.2.5 Subject noun
DEloia, (1973: 95) cites Wright (18981905: 298), who claims that many dialects
of English use strong past participles with a zero or deleted have in armative
sentences in which the subject is a pronoun, viz., I done it, He been sick, etc. This
claim was veried with these data; however, it turns out that aint is the only
form for which subject noun is selected as signicant. Here pronouns favour the
use of aint at .59 while other NPs disfavour it at .28, paralleling the eect
previously reported in the literature for lone past participles. There is no such
eect for any other form in these data, the factor weights hover around .50, an
indication of no tendency in either direction.
23
5.2.6 Summary
In sum, Table 2 provides a multidimensional picture of the present perfect
system in Saman English. The most salient observation that can be made about
these ndings is that the constraint ranking of the factors of temporal distance
and aspect aect the process under consideration in basically the same way for
each of the perfect markers have, been, aint, and be. However, this pattern
diers for the preterite forms: -ed/suppletion and to a lesser extent the verb
stem. This dramatic partitioning of forms reveals their dierential patterning
within the well-circumscribed domain of present perfect. While a number of
frequent (have, -ed/suppletion) and infrequent (be, been, aint) forms are available
for the same function, there is evidence for a signicant degree of specialization
amongst the old and new layers of grammatical strategies (i.e. preterite vs.
perfect) in Saman English. This is consistent with the empirical investigation of
preterite and perfect reported by Elsness (1996: 355) for other varieties of
English. According to him, there is extensive uidity between present perfect and
preterite forms through the history of English, but an essential opposition
between the two is based on the dierent kinds of temporal reference they
express and the dierent ways they combine with adverbial and other temporal
speciers. A similar conclusion is also reached by Kallen (1990: 1332), who
suggests that the dierent forms of the modern Hiberno-English perfect are
sensitive to parameters such as dynamic vs. stative, and recent vs. remote.
The receding, or older construction with be (and possibly been), retains its
propensity to appear with mutative verbs, exactly as hypothesized for an earlier
stage in the history of the perfect. The tendency for the be auxiliary to exhibit
this eect in Saman English seems to be a retention of this earlier lexical
disposition. An account of the specic status of the lone past participle and of
the contemporary non-standard form aint is beyond the scope of this paper.
However, the patterns exhibited here provide evidence that they are both bona
de participants in the English present perfect cohort, as they pattern consistently
with the auxiliaries have and be on the two most signicant linguistic measures.
The form have, which rapidly gained ground over the other markers early on,
clearly did so by spreading into more and more contexts, thus obliterating any
propensity for one context over the other, hence the lack of signicance between
stative and dynamic verbs shown in Table 2. The extent to which this develop-
ment has been arrested and is beginning to be reversed in present-day main-
stream vernacular, particularly in the US (Elsness 1996: 358) provides another
unique opportunity to explore the nature of the grammaticalization process.
6. Discussion
We can now return to the question raised earlier, viz., what can these patterns of
variability in the present perfect in the Saman enclave tell us about processes of
linguistic change? First, the forms in this semantic domain can undeniably be
traced to corresponding forms already in place in earlier stages of English. The
present analysis suggests that many of them were still in place in the mid-
nineteenth century. More crucial, however, is the fact that the factors condition-
ing the choice between competing forms are not only consistent with the
trajectory of development posited for the present perfect in English in the
literature, but also elucidated by the principles of grammaticalization. Three are
particularly relevant to the ndings I have reported here:
1. the principle of layering, whereby new forms are used in a functional
domain and co-vary with older ones: During the emergence of the present
perfect category, periphrastic perfect constructions came to alternate with
preterite forms for the same perfect functions. To date, the former have not
completely ousted the latter from this domain. The Saman data capture this
aspect of the diachrony of English quite accurately. They also reveal the
range of forms and constructions that have competed for the same function
since the inception of the present perfect category, some of them under
specic morphosyntactic constraints.
2. the principle of persistence, whereby traces of the original lexical mean-
ings of forms may be reected in constraints on their grammatical distribu-
tion: This is observed in the statistically signicant eect of verbal aspect,
specically with respect to the use of the moribund be auxiliary with
mutative verbs, as well as in traces of this eect with the lone past partici-
ple been. However, it has been entirely bleached out of the have form.
3. the principle of specialization, whereby as grammaticalization proceeds, a
smaller number of devices (out of a wider initial range) are used more
generally and specialize for the relevant grammatical function, ousting the
other alternatives and reducing their systemic and/or statistical distribution:
This is obvious in standard dialects of English, in which the have + past
participle construction has prevailed as the expression of present perfect
(even if it continues to compete with forms of the preterite). However, have
+ past participle constructions and preterite forms continue to stand out as
dominant expressions of present perfect in Saman English.
In conclusion, the linguistic evidence points to the fact that the synchronic slice
represented by Saman English is a striking reection of an earlier point along
the trajectory of grammaticalization of the present perfect. I suggest therefore,
that it represents a retention of patterns in earlier stages of the English language.
Because of its isolation, Saman English has not participated in the ongoing
development of forms and functions of the present perfect found in other
mainstream varieties of English. Therefore, it provides a glimpse of what the
state of that development may have been like at the time of its separation from
varieties of North American English in the mid-nineteenth century. This illus-
trates some of the advantages of working with data from relic linguistic areas.
This study also highlights the fact that the trajectory of historical change can
still be observed in some contemporary dialects of the English language, not only
with respect to the existence of forms, but also their relative proportion, and,
interestingly, even in the variable constraints on the grammatical distribution of
the forms. Moreover, the patterns of these conditioning factors can reveal the
tracks of the grammaticalization process. Taken together they provide an in-depth
view of a particular milestone along the pathway of development of the present
perfect in English and provide another base-line for interpreting further points
along the way.
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada for research grants #410900336 and #410950778 which enabled me to
conduct some of this research, and the use of the Saman English corpus housed at the University of
Ottawa Sociolinguistics Laboratory, Shana Poplack director. I would like to thank Salikoko Mufwene,
three anonymous reviewers, and the editors for their valuable feedback on this work. All remaining
shortcomings are my own responsibility.
Notes
1. Codes in parentheses identify the speaker and coordinates of the example in the Saman
English corpus.
2. In the Saman English data there is no evidence for the have + NP + past participle order
attested in earlier stages of English, see (Denison 1993: 343; Visser 1970: 2001) and in some
contemporary dialects, e.g. Hiberno-English (Harris 1984; Kallen 1989, 1990).
3. I use the term lone past participle to refer to constructions which contain a past participle, but
no auxiliary.
4. This becomes a particularly interesting question given the recent conclusion of Elsness
(1996: 362), which suggests that the development of the present perfect in English is dierent
from developments observed in other European languages.
5. See Poplack and Sanko (1987) and Tagliamonte (1991) for a detailed description of the
corpus and justication for its categorization as a linguistic enclave. For analyses and argumen-
tation related to the questions of origins of the Saman English tense/aspect system see (e.g.
Poplack and Sanko 1987; Tagliamonte and Poplack 1988; Tagliamonte and Poplack 1993).
For discussion against the possible creole origins of the present perfect forms in Saman see
Tagliamonte (1996, 1997).
6. The form come in Saman English, as in many non-standard varieties of English, is not
uniquely a past participle, but also functions as the preterite form.
7. Mitchell (1985: 302) points out, however, that habban is found in the earliest prose and poetry
with mutative verbs.
8. Of course there are relatively few verbs in English which have a distinct past participle form.
In most cases, absence of the present perfect auxiliary would produce a construction indistin-
guishable from the preterite.
9. Had the present perfect forms been calculated as a basic frequency of all preterite and perfect
forms (e.g. Elsness 1996), the frequencies of the perfect forms would have been much lower.
10. For further discussion of the application of statistical modeling techniques in linguistics:
Cedergren and Sanko (1974); Sanko (1978a, 1978b, 1982); Sanko and Labov (1979);
Sanko and Rousseau (1979).
11. Interestingly, the unambiguous present contexts, although rare, bear some of the characteristics
of the extended now perfect, (McCoard 1978), as in (a) which are comparable to those found
in contemporary Hiberno-English, as in (b), (Kallen 1989: 21).
a. Since I have him, he goes to church. (009/126).
b. Youve been doing that since I know you.
12.
These present perfect contexts actually represent a relatively small proportion of all past
temporal reference contexts in the data, viz., 5%. It is important to point out, however, that the
non-standard variants in Table 1 are largely circumscribed to contexts of the present perfect
and never occur in contexts which require the preterite (see Tagliamonte 1996, 1997).
13. The same type of layering of present perfect contexts has been reported for Hiberno-English,
though with a somewhat dierent cohort of surface forms (Kallen 1989, 1990).
14. In fact, as Denison (1993: 522) points out, grammaticalization could reasonably be applied to
various stages in the development of the perfect.
15. The paucity of some constructions, e.g. done + past participle, made quantitative analysis
impossible.
16. The multivariate analysis tables can be interpreted as follows: The numbers are factor
weights, indicating the probability of the form occurring in the context indicated. The closer
these numbers are to 1; the more highly favouring the eect is; the closer they are to zero the
more disfavouring the eect is. The corrected mean at the top of the table indicates the
overall tendency of the marker to surface in the data. The range, indicated by the numbers in
italics, represent the relative strength of the eect. The higher the numbers; the stronger the
eect. All these calculations are computed by the step-wise selection procedure incorporated
in the variable rule program (Rand and Sanko 1990). Factor weights enclosed in square
brackets indicate that that factor group was not selected as statistically signicant to the choice
of form.
17. The constraint hierarchy refers to the order from more to less amongst the factor weights
within a given factor.
18. Although temporal distance is not selected as signicant for be this may well be due to the
paucity of forms.
19. Unfortunately, there is insucient representation of these individual lexical verbs in these
materials to conduct a quantitative analysis. In any case, such trends were undoubtedly too
early in the grammaticalization of the perfect tense to be expected here.
20. According to Tagliamonte and Poplack (1995), there is substantial interaction between the
traditional semantic/pragmatic categories of perfect and lexcial stativity. Continuative perfects
tend to be stative (74%); resultative perfects tend to be punctual (80%); only experiental
perfects are distributed, albeit unevenly, across the two. This is why I have adopted the
stative/dynamic/mutative categorization schema outlined here.
21. Note, however, that have is still favoured in temporally proximate contexts where it has a
probability of .52 (underlined in column under have). This points up its ongoing overlap with
-ed/suppletion forms.
22. The neutrality of have amongst a variety of other perfect forms is also reported in Hiberno-
English (Kallen 1989: 34).
23. Interestingly, Elsness (1996: 97201, 327332) provides empirical quantitative evidence that
rst person subjects have favoured present perfect forms from Old English to present day
English. Unfortunately, this was not coded in the present data set.
References
Abbott, O. L. 1957. The preterit and past participle of strong verbs in seventeenth-
century American English. American Speech 32 (1): 3142.
Alexander, H. 1926. The verbs of the vulgarate in their historical relations. American
Speech 4 (4): 307315.
Anttila, R. 1989. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amster-
dam/New York: John Benjamins.
Atwood, E. B. 1953. A Survey of Verb Forms in the Eastern United States. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Bauer, G. 1970. The English perfect reconsidered. Journal of Linguistics 6
(2): 189198.
Brinton, L. J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Brinton, L. J. 1994. The dierentiation of statives and perfects in early modern English:
The development of the conclusive perfect. In Towards a Standard English,
16001800 [Topics in English Linguistics], D. Stein and I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade
(eds), 13570. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brunner, K. 1963. An Outline of Middle English Grammar, transl. by G. K. W. Johnston.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense,
Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Carey, K. 1994. The Grammaticalization of the perfect in Old English. In Perspectives
on Grammaticalization, W. Pagliuca (ed.), 103117. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Carey, K. 1995a. From resultativity to current relevance: Evidence from the history of
English and Modern Castilian Spanish. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and
Language, A. E. Goldberg (ed.), 3148. Stanford, California: CSLI.
Carey, K. 1995b. Subjectication and the development of the English perfect. In
Subjectivity and Subjectivisation in Language, D. Stein and S. Wright (eds), 83102.
Cedergren, H. J. and Sanko, D. 1974. Variable rules: Performance as a statistical
reection of competence. Language 50 (2): 333355.
Christian, D., Wolfram, W. and Dube, N. 1988. Variation and Change in Geographically
Isolated Communities: Appalachian English and Ozark English. Tuscaloosa, Ala-
bama: American Dialect Society.
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related
Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curme, G. O. 1977. A Grammar of the English Language. Essex, Connecticut: Verbatim.
DEloia, S. G. 1973. Issues in the analysis of Nonstandard Negro English: A review of
J. L. Dillards Black English: Its history and usage in the United States. Journal of
English Linguistics 7: 87106.
Dahl, . 1984. Temporal distance: Remoteness distinctions in tense-aspect systems. In
Explanations for Language Universals, B. Butterworth, B. Comrie and . Dahl (eds),
105122. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Denison, D. 1993. English Historical Syntax. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Denison, D. 1998. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language,
1776-present day, S. Romaine (ed.), 92329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elsness, J. 1996. The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Feagin, C. 1979. Variation and Change in Alabama English: A Sociolinguistic Study of the
White Community. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Fenn, P. 1987. A Semantic and Pragmatic Examination of the English Perfect. Tbingen:
Gunter Narr.
Filppula, M. 1996. Investigating the origins of Hiberno-English perfects: The case of
PII. In Speech Past and Present: Studies in English Dialectology in Memory of Ossi
Ihalainen: University of Bamberg Studies in English Linguistics, J. Klemola, M. Kyt
and M. Rissanen (eds), 3355. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Fridn, G. 1948. Studies on the Tenses of the English Verb from Chaucer to Shakespeare
with Special Reference to the Late Sixteenth Century. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells
Boktryckeri AB.
Fries, C. C. 1940. American English Grammar. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts.
Harris, J. 1984. Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics 20
(2): 303327.
Harris, M. 1982. The past simple and present perfect in Romance. In Studies in the
Romance Verb, N. Vincent and M. Harris (eds), 4270. London: Croom Helm.
Hock, H. H. 1986. Principles of Historical Linguistics [Trends in Linguistics, Studies and
Monographs 34]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to
Grammaticalization, volume 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues
[Typological Studies in Language], E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 1735.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 1993. Grammaticalization [Cambridge Textbooks in
Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, O. H. 1909/1949. A Modern English Grammar. Part VI: Morphology. London:
George Allen & Unwin.
Kallen, J. L. 1989. Tense and aspect categories in Irish English. English World-Wide
10: 139.
Kallen, J. L. 1990. The Hiberno-English perfect: Grammaticalization revisited. Irish
University Review 20 (1): 12037.
Leech, G. N. 1987. Meaning and the English Verb. New York: Longman.
Marckwardt, A. H. 1958. American English. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCawley, J. D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic
Semantics, C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Langendoen (eds), 97113. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
McCoard, R. W. 1978. The English Perfects: Tense-Choice and Pragmatic Inferences.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
McDavid, R. I., Jr. and McDavid, V. 1986. Kentucky verb forms. In Language Variety
in the South: Perspectives in Black and White, M. Montgomery and G. Bailey (eds),
264283. University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Meillet, A. 1912. Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Gnrale. Paris: Champion.
Melchers, G. 1992. Dus no heard da last o dis on the use of BE as a perfective
auxiliary in Shetland dialect. In History of Englishes, M. Rissanen, O. Ihalainen, T.
Nevalainen and I. Taavitsainen (eds), 602610. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mencken, H. L. 1962. The American Language. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Menner, R. J. 1926. Verbs of the vulgate in their historical relations. American Speech
1 (4): 230240.
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English Syntax, vols I, II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Mustanoja, T. F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Socit Nophilologique.
Noseworthy, R. G. 1972. Verb usage in Grand Bank. Regional Language Studies
Newfoundland 4: 1924.
Poplack, S. and Sanko, D. 1987. The Philadelphia story in the Spanish Caribbean.
American Speech 62 (4): 291314.
Poplack, S. and Tagliamonte, S. 1989. Theres no tense like the present: Verbal -s
inection in Early Black English. Language Variation and Change 1 (1): 4784.
Poplack, S. and Tagliamonte, S. 1991. African American English in the diaspora: The
case of old-line Nova Scotians. Language Variation and Change 3 (3): 301339.
Poplack, S. and Tagliamonte, S. 1994. -S or nothing: Marking the plural in the African
American diaspora. American Speech 69 (3): 227259.
Pousada, A. and Poplack, S. 1982. No case for convergence: The Puerto Rican Spanish
verb system in a language-contact situation. In Bilingual Education for Hispanic
Students in the United States, J. A. Fishman and G. D. Keller (eds), 207237. New
York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
of the English Language. New York: Longman.
Rand, D. and Sanko, D. 1990. GoldVarb: A Variable Rule Application for the Macintosh.
Montreal, Canada: Centre de recherches mathmatiques, Universit de Montral.
Version 2.
Rydn, M. and Brorstrm, S. 1987. The be/have Variation with Instransitives in English:
With Special Reference to the Late Modern Period. [Stockholm Studies in English
70]. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Sanko, D. (ed.). 1978a. Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods. New York: Academ-
ic Press.
Sanko, D. 1978b. Probability and linguistic variation. Synthse 37: 217238.
Sanko, D. 1982. Sociolinguistic method and linguistic theory. In Logic, Methodology,
Philosophy of Science VI [Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics],
L. J. Cohen, J. Los, H. Pfeier and K. P. Podewski (eds), 677689. Amsterdam:
North Holland & Warsaw: Polish Scientic.
Sanko, D. and Labov, W. 1979. On the uses of variable rules. Language in Society 8
(2): 189222.
Sanko, D. and Rousseau, P. 1979. Categorical contexts and variable rules. In Papers
from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation, Stockholm, May 1819,
1979, S. Jacobson (ed.), 722. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Scur, G. S. 1974. On the typology of some peculiarities of the perfect in the English of
Tristan da Cunha. Orbis 23 (2): 392396.
Strang, B. M. H. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen.
Tagliamonte, S. 1991. A matter of time: Past temporal reference verbal structures in
Saman English and the ex-slave recordings. Ph. D. dissertation, University of
Ottawa.
Tagliamonte, S. 1996. Has it ever been PERFECT? Uncovering the grammar of early
Black English. York Papers in Linguistics 17: 351396.
Tagliamonte, S. 1997. Obsolescence in the English perfect? Evidence from Saman
English. American Speech 72 (1): 3368.
Tagliamonte, S. and Poplack, S. 1988. How Black English past got to the present:
Evidence from Saman. Language in Society 17 (4): 513533.
Tagliamonte, S. and Poplack, S. 1993. The zero-marked verb: Testing the creole
hypothesis. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 8 (2): 171206.
Tagliamonte, S. and Poplack, S. 1995. Obsolescence in the English perfect: Evidence
from African Nova Scotian English, paper presented at American Dialect Society
Meeting, special session on dialect obsolescence. Chicago, Illinois.
Tagliamonte, S., Poplack, S. and Eze, E. 1997. Pluralization patterns in Nigerian Pidgin
English. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 12 (1): 103129.
Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic
Linguistics. Berkeley /Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Traugott, E. C. 1972. A History of English Syntax. A Transformational Approach to the
History of English Sentence Structures. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Traugott, E. C. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, R. M.
Hogg (ed.), 168289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. 1991. Introduction. In Approaches to Grammaticalization
[Typological studies in language], E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 214. Amster-
dam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Trudgill, P. 1990. The Dialects of England. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vanneck, G. 1955. The colloquial preterite in Modern American English. Word
14: 23742.
Vincent, N. 1982. The development of the auxiliaries HABERE and ESSE in Romance.
In Studies in the Romance Verb, N. Vincent and M. Harris (eds), 7196. London:
Croom Helm.
Visser, F. T. 1970. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Wright, J. 18981905. The English Dialect Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Zandvoort, R. W. 1932. On the perfect of experience. English Studies 14 (1): 1120.
Grammaticalization versus lexicalization
Methinks there is some confusion
Ilse Wischer
University of Potsdam
1. Introduction
Grammaticalization and lexicalization are both processes of linguistic change
codifying language material in dierent ways. While the former is concerned
with the development of grammemes, the latter describes emerging lexemes.
According to the dierent output there ought to be a clear distinction between
the two processes. Some particular instances of linguistic change, however, seem
to be dicult to classify as one or the other, especially in connection with the
idiomaticization of syntagms, which take on a modal or discourse function.
Methinks is such an example. In Early Modern English it developed from a free
syntactic structure into a marker of evidentiality. On the basis of a detailed
analysis of this process I will show that mechanisms of both grammaticalization
and lexicalization are involved in the development of methinks, and that both
processes in general are not at all contradictory. They exhibit many similarities,
but operate on dierent levels of the language.
2. Grammaticalization
Grammaticalization is generally considered to be a process that turns linguistic
elements (lexical, pragmatic, sometimes even phonetic items)
1
into grammatical
elements, or that renders grammatical items still more grammatical. Traugott and
Heine (1991: 1) dene it as the linguistic process, both through time and
synchronically, of organization of categories and of coding. Recently it turned
out that there are two subtypes of grammaticalization. One of them, the more
356 ILSE WISCHER
traditional one, operates on the propositional level. It is based on Meillets
assumption, which denes this process as le passage dun mot autonome au rle
dlment grammatical [the transition of an independent word into a grammati-
cal element] (Meillet 1912: 131).
2
The most inuential approach in this respect
is probably Lehmanns (1985) article on processes and parameters of gramma-
ticalization.
3
Based on Givn (1979: 209) he characterizes the process of
grammaticalization as one of cyclic waves passing through the following levels:
(1) discourse syntax morphology morphophonemics zero.
4
Within this cycle a linguistic element can be more or less grammaticalized.
Lehmann (1985: 306) argues that the more freedom with which a sign is used,
the more autonomous, i.e., the less grammaticalized, it is. According to
Lehmann (1985: 307308), the degree of grammaticalization can be determined
in terms of the following paradigmatic and syntagmatic parameters:
1. attrition: the gradual loss of semantic and phonological substance;
2. paradigmaticization: the increasing integration of a syntactic element into
a morphological paradigm;
3. obligatorication: the choice of the linguistic item becomes rule-governed;
4. condensation: the shrinking of scope;
5. coalescence: once a syntactic unit has become morphological, it gains in
bondedness and may even fuse with the constituent it governs;
6. xation: the item loses its syntagmatic variability and becomes a slot
ller.
Whereas this rst subtype of grammaticalization (subtype I) refers to the
transformation of free syntactic units into highly constrained grammatical
morphemes, which operate on the level of the proposition, the second subtype
(subtype II) operates on the textual or discourse level and concerns the develop-
ment of textual or discourse markers. The most inuential work in this respect
is probably Traugott (1982). According to her theory linguistic elements move in
the following direction:
(2) proposition text discourse.
Again, an element can be more or less grammaticalized. But compared to
subtype I, the processes involved are only partly the same. Attrition occurs as
phonetic reduction and semantic bleaching, the second generally being specied
as subjectication, i.e., the foregrounded generalized meaning becomes more sub-
jective, more expressive and less referential than the previous lexical meaning.
GRAMMATICALIZATION VERSUS LEXICALIZATION 357
In opposition to subtype I no paradigmaticization seems to be necessary or
even possible. Although the grammaticalized item increases in frequency, there
is no strict obligatorication, i.e., the use of the textual or discourse marker has
not become rule-governed in the sense that its application is the only choice in
this particular context. In terms of syntagmatic relationships an extension instead
of a shrinking of scope is most likely to be noticed, so that coalescence, or a
fusion with the constituents situated within the scope of the textual or discourse
marker, is not possible. In adopting a textual or discourse function, it prefers
certain positions in the sentence, yet is not xed to ll a particular slot (for this,
see also Lenker, this volume).
In a recent study of I think as an English modal particle, Aijmer (1997: 2)
distinguishes between grammaticalization and pragmaticalization: Grammatical-
ization is concerned with the derivation of grammatical forms and constructions
(mood, aspect, tense, etc.) from words and lexicalized structures Discourse
markers such as you know, you see, etc., are typically pragmaticalized, since
they involve the speakers attitude to the hearer. However, she admits that
there are many similarities between the processes involved in pragmaticalization
and grammaticalization (Aijmer 1997: 6).
I will consider them subtypes of grammaticalization. Both have in common
that language material undergoes a process of recategorization, changing over
from a more open categorial system to a closer one. For subtype I (grammatical-
ization on the propositional level) this implies that lexical categories, such as
nouns, verbs, adjectives become grammatical categories: prepositions, conjunc-
tions, auxiliaries, etc. These, again, can be further grammaticalized in the
direction of axes, which are integrated in closer morphological paradigms and
their scope is reduced to the stem that they are attached to. They nally function
as intra-propositional operators.
5
In subtype II (grammaticalization on the text or
discourse level), lexical material enters a relatively close categorial system of
textual or discourse markers via further subjectication and extension of scope,
resulting in extra-propositional or discourse operators. In both cases a lexical
meaning turns into an operational meaning. This categorial change is accompa-
nied by a process of phonetic reduction. Thus, grammaticalization is not merely
a syntactic change, but a global one, including apart from syntax morpho-
logy, phonology, semantics and discourse as well.
358 ILSE WISCHER
3. Lexicalization
Lexicalization, on the other hand, is a process less carefully and less systemati-
cally studied than grammaticalization. Thus, there is no general agreement about
the use of the term itself. Some authors describe lexicalization as the process that
turns free syntactic groups or ad-hoc-formations into lexical units by adding a
specic semantic component, thus identifying it with idiomaticization,
6
others
consider idiomaticization a consequence of lexicalization.
7
Some authors regard
lexicalization as the transfer of any linguistic material into the lexicon of a
language.
8
As soon as something is stored as a unit in the lexicon, it is treated
like a formula. According to this approach the development of any new lexeme
is an instance of lexicalization. Keller (1995: 219) points out: Lexikalisierung
nennt man den Prozess, der darin besteht, da sprachliche Ausdrcke Teil des
Lexikons werden [When linguistic elements become part of the lexicon, this
process is called lexicalization]. The metonymical or metaphorical use of a
collocation becomes conventionalized. An icon turns into a symbol, so that
the semantic interpretation becomes rule-based.
9
This symbolication of meto-
nymies or metaphors is accompanied by dierent degrees of desyntacticization
and demotivation. The whole process can be considered to be a kind of codica-
tion of language material, which is to be distinguished from a regular word
formation process.
As several mechanisms are involved in the process of lexicalization, not
necessarily proceeding simultaneously, Bauer (1983: 5061) distinguishes
between dierent types of lexicalization:
1. Changes of stress patterns and/or phonetic reductions are features of
phonological lexicalization (cf. famous [feIm6s] infamous [Inf6m6s]).
2. Linking elements and/or non-productive roots or axes are features of
morphological lexicalization (cf. eat edible).
3. Lack of semantic compositionality is a feature of semantic lexicalization
(cf. understand).
4. Non-productive syntactic patterns and/or unusual functions of syntactic
patterns are features of syntactic lexicalization (cf. pickpocket).
5. Many examples are mixed lexicalizations, which can lead to a complete
demotivation, so that the results have to be treated as simplex lexemes (cf.
husband).
I will follow Kellers view of lexicalization, but like Bauer, I consider it a
gradual process. The types that he lists are obviously accompanying mechanisms,
which can be more or less powerful. In the same sense as grammaticalization is
dened as a process which turns linguistic elements into grammatical items, or
renders grammatical items still more grammatical, I want to dene lexicalization
as the process that turns linguistic material into lexical items, i.e., into lexemes,
and renders them still more lexical.
Both processes, grammaticalization and lexicalization, are related to each other
in dierent ways. Some scholars regard lexicalization as some kind of degram-
maticalization, in a way that grammatical constructions lose their grammatical
function and degenerate into idioms or lexical items (cf. e.g. Chen 1998). Others
point out that grammaticalization can be a further development of lexicalization, in
the sense of a stricter codication of the lexicalized item (cf. Keller 1995: 227).
10
Obviously there is a close connection between the two processes, which might be
due to the fact that in both cases similar mechanisms are at work:
Der bergang vom Ikon zum Symbol, [spielt] bei dem, was man Lexikali-
sierung nennt, eine entscheidende Rolle [The transition of an icon into
a symbol plays an important part in what is called lexicalization]
(Keller 1995: 167168)
Grammaticalisation is the gradual fusion of icons into symbols
(McMahon 1994: 172)
Die Prozesse der Symbolwerdung von Metonymien und Metaphern fat man
gemeinhin zusammen unter der Bezeichnung Lexikalisierung. [The process-
es of symbolication of metonymies and metaphors are usually subsumed
under the term lexicalization] (Keller 1995: 183)
semantic change in the early stages of grammaticalization usually
involves specication achieved through inferencing the inferencing is of two
kinds: Metaphor and metonymy, (Traugott and Knig 1991: 212)
Both processes involve symbolications of icons, and these icons seem to be
metaphorically or metonymically conditioned.
There has always been a great deal of confusion between the two processes.
Even Meillet provides examples of grammaticalization that clearly meet all the
requirements of lexicalization. In example (3), phonological, morphological and
semantic lexicalization have led to a complete demotivation and thus turned the
former free syntactic unit into a lexical item.
(3) heute < *hiu tagu
today < this- day-
this day (Meillet 1925: 25)
However, it must be admitted that the new lexical unit belongs to a rather
closed class of adverbials, which opens up the question whether it has really
360 ILSE WISCHER
become an element of the lexicon or indeed a grammatical item. This leads to
the following two conclusions:
a. It is necessary to base the concept of grammaticalization on a clear deni-
tion of the grammatical system in the same way as the concept of lexical-
ization must be based on a clear denition of the lexicon of a language.
b. There seem to be similar processes involved in both the development of
new grammatical material as well as of new lexemes.
4. The development of methinks
In the following I will try to nd out what happened to the construction me
ynce > methinks in the history of English, which mechanisms led to its change
and whether to characterize it as a case of grammaticalization or lexicalization.
From this I hope to gain some insight into similarities and dierences between
the two processes of linguistic development.
In Old English me ynce was a free syntactic unit constituting an imper-
sonal construction among quite a number of other similar constructions. It
occurred in all person and number categories as well as in all possible tense and
mood forms with the exception of the imperative, since it expressed a non-
intentional state, viz. (it) seems/seemed to me/you . Syntactically it formed a
clause with the rciiirN1 always marked by the dative case, the :rrrc1rb
if surfaced by the nominative (cf. examples (4) and (5)). The verb itself was
usually complementized by an adjective(phrase) (examples (4) and (5)), a noun
phrase (example (6)) or a t-clause (example (7)). The word order was exible:
(4) Se me inc gesligra e hwthwugu hf.
he-Nox me-b:1 seems happier who something has
He who possesses something seems happier to me.
(O2 XX Philo Boethal 119)
11
(5) a steorran e us lytle inca, sind swie brade
the stars-Nox which us-b:1 small seem, are very big
The stars, which seem to us to be small, are very big.
(O3 Ex Scia Temp 12)
(6) eah hit wisra gehwm wundor ince
although it of-the-wise-(men) everyone-b:1 (a)-miracle seem
Although it may seem a miracle to each of the wise men
(O2/3 XX XX MBO 199)
(7) eah monnum ynce t hit long sie.
although men-b:1 seem-3sc.scn.irs that it long be
Although to men it may appear to be long.
(O2XX Philo Boethal 117)
Apart from yncan, there was a personal verb, encan in Old English, which was
formally and semantically very close to yncan. Since it expressed a mental
activity (think, remember, intend, learn, ), it was always accompanied by an
:c1o in subject function and an onrc1 of the mental activity:
(8) he ne mg witan hwt he enc;
he not can know what(on) he(:c1) thinks
He cannot know what he thinks. (O2 XX Philo Boethal 132)
(9) a ohte he t he sceolde worulde wisacan,
then thought he(:c1) [that he should world-:cc forsake](on)
And he thought that he should forsake the world.
(O2 NN Hist Bedehe 264)
In Middle English (11501500), the situation is to a considerable extent similar
to that of Old English, as me inc is still used as an impersonal construction
among other impersonals and in all person and number categories, tenses and
moods (cf. example (10)). The rciiirN1 is still marked by the dative case, as
long as a personal pronoun is used. It is mostly preposed, but can be found in
postposed position, too (cf. example (11)). The meaning is still the same. But the
syntax has changed. An :rrrc1rb participant has become very rare, as well as
a complementation by an adjective (phrase). rciiirN1 and verb are normally
in close contact position without being interrupted by other elements. Thus the
verb is more and more losing its typical valence features and degenerating into
a formula-like expression.
12
Furthermore, the impersonal construction is frequent-
ly complemented by that-clauses with the subordinator in many examples
deleted. Since in Middle English the word order has already changed to SVO in
main and subordinated clauses, the former complementing clause can easily be
analysed as the main clause,
13
and the impersonal construction, formerly the
dominating clause, is now consequently interpreted as a subordinated disjunct,
which allows for its parenthetical use (cf. examples (12)(13)). The denotation
of evidentiality, formerly implied in the denotation of an act of cognition, is
foregrounded (cf. Brinton 1996: 275276).
362 ILSE WISCHER
(10) e inche at he ne mihte his sinne forlete.
you- thinks that he not might his sin- relinquish
It seems to you that he might not relinquish his sin.
(MX/1 Ir Hom Trin 12, 73)
(11) Thy wombe is waxen grete, thynke me, ou arte with barne,
your womb is grown big think me- you are with child
Your womb has grown big. You seem to be pregnant.
(M4 XX Myst York 119)
(12) My lord me thynketh / my lady here hath saide to you trouthe and
gyuen yow good counseyl [] (M4 Ni Fict Reynard 54)
(13) I se on the rmament, Me thynk, the seven starnes.
(M4 XX Myst Town 25)
For reasons of sound change the impersonal stative verb yncan seem and the
personal dynamic verb encan believe, cogitate become formally more and
more alike, and, as they are semantically very close to each other too, it is not
surprising that at the end of the Middle English period both verbs can no longer
formally be distinguished and personal constructions become more and more
prominent, even with a non-intentional stative meaning
14
(cf. examples (14) and
(15), but notice (16), which is still impersonal):
(14) O ye lordes thynke ye that this is good
you- (M4 Ni Fict Reynard 9)
(15) Sche thowt it was heuy to hir to takyn sweche labowr vp-on hir
she- (M4 Ir Relt Kempe I,226)
(16) hir thowt sche had neuyr so mech be-forn.
her- (M4 Ir Relt Kempe I,229)
In Early Modern English (15001750) it is only the rst person singular
methinks/methought that survives in its impersonal form. A comparison of its use
in the three sections of the Early Modern English part of the Helsinki Corpus
shows that this construction is increasingly analysed as one item (cf. Table 1).
Postposition of the pronoun occurs only in one single instance in the Early
Modern English part of the Helsinki Corpus, and this is in section E1, the
earliest period:
(17) But yet it thinketh me, loe, that if I may not declare the causes without
perill, than to leaue them vndeclared is no obstinacy.
(E1 XX Corp Morelet 505)
Methinks/methought is no longer complemented by other elements and as a rule
Table 1. Total number of occurrences of methinks/methought in the three sections of the
Early Modern English part of the Helsinki Corpus spelled separately or as one word
E1
15001570
E2
15701640
E3
16401710
spelled separately
spelled as one word
19
01
8
8
03
16
it functions syntactically as a disjunct. Formally it resembles an adverb, except
for its present and past tense forms, which are traits of its verbal origin, and as
such, viz. as a verb, it is usually treated in dictionaries. If we nd methinks listed
in dictionaries, should we not assume that it represents a lexeme, that it has
undergone a process of lexicalization? On the other hand, function words are also
listed in dictionaries, although they belong to the sphere of grammar and have
undergone a process of grammaticalization. What has happened to methinks?
It has denitely passed through a syntactic change, and semantically it has
lost its original compositional meaning denoting an individual process of
cognition and has acquired an interpersonal function, that of marking evident-
iality. Methinks has been restricted to the rst person singular, i.e. the speak-
er/writer, and is therefore highly subjective in meaning. Constructions with other
referents than the speaker (thee, him, ) fall out of use, so that the only surviv-
ing one is that with the highest degree of subjectivity. With respect to I think,
Aijmer (1997: 6) calls this process specialization. So it can be argued that
towards Middle and Early Modern English the impersonal construction methinks
had undergone a process of grammaticalization to develop into an adverbial
marker of evidentiality (cf. Palander-Collin 1996; Brinton 1996). This would t
into subtype II of grammaticalization mentioned above. Processes like syntactic
reanalysis, phonetic attrition and subjectication, extension of scope, the
preference of certain positions in the sentence,
15
point to this explanation.
On the other hand, a once productively formed impersonal construction has
been fossilized, conventionalized, partly demotivated (since impersonal
constructions have become unproductive) and therefore changed into a symbol,
a formula, and as such it has to be stored as a whole entity in the lexicon. This
would be perfectly in line with the denition of lexicalization given above.
The newly developed lexeme, however, is classied as an adverb.
Syntactically it operates as a disjunct to mark evidentiality. As such it belongs to
a relatively closed class. As Larreya (1986) points out, there is only a limited
364 ILSE WISCHER
number of verbs that express a mental position. Such items tend to become
categorized, hence grammaticalized.
Thus mechanisms of both processes are involved in the development of
methinks: Lexicalization occurs as syntactic lexicalization, i. e. the symbol-
ication of a former free collocation, the syntactic pattern of which has become
unproductive. The new sign, however, immediately takes over a grammatical function
on the discourse level, and is thus grammaticalized according to subtype II.
The lexicalization of methinks becomes obvious when its historical develop-
ment is compared to that of I think in Modern English. Aijmers (1997) descrip-
tion of the pragmaticalization of I think shows many parallels with the grammat-
icalization (type II) of methinks, with the only dierence that I think is not
lexicalized. None of Bauers (1983) types of lexicalization can be applied to I
think. It has not become a symbol to be listed as such in the lexicon of English.
5. Summary
Summarizing these facts, it becomes obvious that lexicalization and grammatical-
ization (both, subtypes I and II) are not at all contradictory processes. They show
many similarities, but operate on dierent levels of the language (see Figure 1).
Such processes as phonetic attrition and semantic bleaching seem to be irrevers-
ible. Ldtke (1996: 537) convincingly points to the fact that the phonic substance
of linguistic signs is constantly eroding in the course of time. This erosion cannot
be reversed. It is compensated by morpho-syntactic means. Likewise he provides
evidence of irreversible semantic processes that turn specic meanings into more
general and nally into very abstract (operational) meanings.
17
It is therefore
highly unlikely that a grammatical item (a function word or an inectional
morpheme) turns back into a lexeme,
18
i.e., becomes lexicalized again. So
lexicalization cannot be considered to be the reverse of grammaticalization or
degrammaticalization. However, it can be related to desyntacticization, in the
sense of a syntagmatic structure losing its syntactic transparency and merging
into one single lexical item, (which also happened with methinks).
Both processes, grammaticalization and lexicalization, are accompanied by
very similar syntactic and phonetic mechanisms: gradual phonetic reduction,
syntactic reanalysis, demotivation, fossilization, conventionalization. The
semantic changes, however, dier: When a free collocation or an ordinary word
formation is lexicalized, a specic semantic component is added, so that the new
lexical meaning diers from the former compositional meaning. Both are related
to each other in a metaphorical or metonymical sense.
19
When a linguistic term
is grammaticalized, specic semantic components get lost and an implied
LEXICON GRAMMAR
Language use
LEXICON GRAMMAR
1.1. syntagm becomes new lexical item 2.1. syntagm becomes new grammatical
(mother-in-law; ...) item on the propositional level (I)
(be going to; in front of ) or
on the textual or interpersonal level (II)
(methinks; indeed; )
2.2. lexeme becomes grammatical item
(I) (will; have; ) or (II) ( well; )
1.2. lexeme becomes more lexical
16
2.3. grammatical item becomes more
(OE: hlaf-weard bread-protector ' grammatical
> ModE: lord,... ) (I) (function words > clitics; ...)
(II) (marker of dynamic modality
> marker of epistemic modality; ...)
...
... ...
...
Figure 1. Similar processes on the lexical and the grammatical level of the language
categorial or operational meaning is foregrounded.
Methinks passed through a syntactic lexicalization process which was not
accompanied by an addition of a specic semantic component, but rather by an
opposite semantic change: Impersonal think has no longer a meaning of its own.
It cannot combine with other persons any more (*himthinks, *us thought ). So,
methinks has lost its original propositional meaning denoting an act of cognition
and has acquired an exclusively speaker-oriented, or interpersonal, meaning. This
change can be regarded as an increase in subjectivity. Thus it operates as a
marker of evidentiality, and as such it has become a member of a relatively
closed class. Although we can notice an increase in frequency in Early Modern
English, methinks never becomes obligatory,
20
but always stands in free variation
with expressions like I think, it seems to me, obviously etc. Grammatical elements
of this kind are less constrained and therefore situated at the periphery of grammar.
21
And this must also be the reason for the relatively shortlasting existence of
methinks. Linguistic elements, once they are grammaticalized, normally have a
rather stable position in the language, whereas lexical units are less constrained,
more exible and pass out of existence more easily.
366 ILSE WISCHER
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the many people who commented on earlier versions of this paper, especially
Olga Fischer and Dieter Stein, Elizabeth Traugott, Laurel Brinton, as well as the anonymous
reviewers of this paper.
Notes
1. E.g. in Irish, palatalisation and initial mutations have been functionalized/grammaticalized to
distinguish dierent cases, number and gender, etc.
2. This approach was further developed by Kuryowicz (1965).
3. Cf. also Heine and Reh (1984: 15) [Grammaticalization is] an evolution whereby linguistic
units lose in semantic complexity, pragmatic signicance, syntactic freedom, and phonetic
substance .
4. Lehmann (1985: 311); Cf. also Lehmann (1995: 13); Bybee (1985); Hopper (1988); Li and
Thompson (1974).
5. The term operator is used with several dierent meanings. The usage here refers to a
specifying or modiying element with no denotational, but only an operational, i.e.
grammatical meaning (cf. Hansen et al. 1990: 155156).
6. Cf. Hansen et al. (1990); Talmy (1985); Brekle and Kastovsky (1977); Kastovsky (1974).
7. Lipka (1977: 155) considers lexicalization a process by which a complex lexeme loses its
syntagmatic character and its compositional meaning due to or accompanied by phonological
changes, loss of motivation and semantic changes, which nally lead to its idiomaticization.
8. Cf. Coulmas (1985); Schwarze and Wunderlich (1985); Keller (1995).
9. According to Keller (1995: 114118) icons and symbols are dened in terms of the
procedure that leads to their interpretation. Icons are signs that are interpreted by means of
associative conclusions. Between signier and signied there is a relation of similarity. New
icons can principally be created ad hoc. They are necessarily motivated and transparent.
Symbols, on the other hand, are arbitrary signs that are interpreted by means of rule-based
conclusions. For a detailed description of the process of symbolication of icons cf. Keller
(1995: 167173).
10. Aijmer (1997: 2) implies the same idea in her denition of grammaticalization.
11. The examples are taken from the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts.
More detailed bibliographical information about the references is given in the Appendix.
12. However, such a reanalysis seems only to be possible, if the meaning of the former main
clause allows a certain categorization, for instance as a marker of evidentiality, of epistemic
modality, or others (it seems, es scheint, mne kaetsa [Russ.]; I assume, the point is, I expect, ).
13. Further investigations might provide evidence for a general relationship between the deletion
of the subordinator that and a probable reinterpretation of main and subordinated clauses in
English.
14. Non-intentional stative meanings (mental states) were formerly expressed by impersonal
constructions with yncan seem. encan believe, cogitate, on the other hand, implied a
mental activity, often combined with an intention, cf. eah hwa mge ongitan hwt oer do, he
ne mg witan hwt he enc; eah he mge sume his willan ongitan, onne ne mg he eallne,
though someone may understand what somebody else is doing, he cannot know what he is
thinking; though he may understand part of his desire, yet he cannot (understand) all (of it).
(O2 XX Philo Boethal 132).
15. It can be preposed, postposed or parenthetically embedded into the proposition.
16. According to Bauers (1983) types of lexicalization an item can only be phonologically or
morphologically, etc. lexicalized. The more levels (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics)
are involved in the lexicalization process, the stronger the item seems to be lexicalized, with
its total demotivation as its nal stage.
17. Cf. also Brinton (1996: 52 and 273); Heine, Claudi and Hnnemeyer (1991: 150).
18. There has, however, developed a dispute on the unidirectionality hypothesis of grammatical-
ization, based on probable counterexamples like case markers turning into clitics (Kahr 1976),
or words as elements of a rather closed class changing over into an open, lexical class (Givn
1975: 96). Whether especially the latter are merely instances of divergence, which is normal in
any kind of grammaticalization or whether they are due to some reanalysis, that may indeed be
described as degrammaticalization, must be the subject of further investigation.
19. According to Hansen et al. (1990: 39) reader in The reader of that article will forgive us if is
an ad-hoc formation, whereas in The newspaper lost many readers it is lexicalized. It has
acquired the additional component +. Both meanings are metonymically related.
20. In contrast to a case marker, an article, or an auxiliary. Aijmer (1997: 3) states: pragmatic
elements tend to be optional in the sentence while grammaticalization results in forms which
are an obligatory part of the grammatical core such as tense and mood. Cf. also Hopper and
Traugott (1993: 113).
21. Based on the assumption that there is no strict borderline between grammar and lexicon or
grammar and pragmatics (for grammaticalization is a gradual process), I consider those
grammatical morphemes that are less categorized and that exhibit a certain degree of variability
as peripheral. Rules or morphemes that are obligatory (e.g. word order, case markers, or
articles) belong to the core of grammar. Cf. also grammatical core in note 20.
Appendix
(4) Alfreds Boethius. King Alfreds Old English Version of Boethius De Consolatione Philosophiae,
W. J. Sedgeeld (ed.). Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1899.
(5) Aelfrics De Temporibus Anni. Early English Text Society, 21, Henel (ed.). London, 1942.
(6) The Meters of Boethius. The Paris Psalter and the Meters of Boethius. The Anglo-Saxon Poetic
Records, V, G. Ph. Krapp (ed.). London. George Routledge & Sons, Limited and New York:
Columbia University Press, 1933.
(7) Cf. (4).
(8) Cf. (4).
(9) Bedes Ecclesiastical History. The Old English Version of Bedes Ecclesiastical History of the
English People, Parts I,1; I,2. Early English Text Society, O.S. 95, 96, Th. Miller (ed.).
London, 1959 (1890; 1891).
(10) Trinity Homilies. [1225]. Old English Homilies of the Twelfth Century. Second Series. Early
English Text Society, O.S. 53, R. Morris (ed.). London, 1873.
(11) The York Plays. [1450], Richard Beadle (ed.). London: Edward Arnold Ltd, 1982.
368 ILSE WISCHER
(12) Caxton, William. [1481]. The History of Reynard the Fox. Translated from the Dutch Original
by William Caxton. Early English Text Society, 263, N. F. Blake (ed.). London, 1970.
(13) The Wakeeld Pageants in the Towneley Cycle. [1500] Old and Middle English Texts, A. C.
Cawley (ed.). Manchester: The Manchester University Press, 1958.
(14) Cf. (12).
(15) Kempe, Margery. [1438]. The Book of Margery Kempe, vol. I. Early English Text Society.
S. B. Meech and H. E. Allen (eds). London, 1940.
(16) Cf. (15).
(17) More, Thomas. [1529]. Letter(s). The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More, E. F. Rogers (ed.).
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947.
References
Aijmer, K. 1997. I think an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic
Languages. Historical and Comparative Perspective, T. Swan and O. J. Westvik
(eds), 147. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bauer, L. 1983. English Word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brekle, H. E. and Kastovsky, D. Wortbildungsforschung: Entwicklung und Positionen.
In Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung, H. E. Brekle and D. Kastovsky (eds),
719. Bonn: Bouvier.
Brinton, L. J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse
Function. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Chen, G. 1998. The degrammaticalization of addressee-satisfaction conditionals in Early
Modern English. In Advances in English Historical Linguistics, J. Fisiak and M.
Krygier (eds), 2332. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Coulmas, F. 1985. Lexikalisierung von Syntagmen. In Handbuch der Lexikologie, Chr.
Schwarze and D. Wunderlich (eds), 250268. Knigstein /Ts: Athenum.
Givn, Talmy. 1975. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In Word Order
and Word Order Change, C. N. Li (ed.), 47112. Austin/London: University of Texas
Press.
Hansen, B., Hansen, K., Neubert, A. and Schentke, M. 1990. Englische Lexikologie.
Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopdie.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hnnemeyer, F. 1991. From cognition to grammar: Evidence
from African languages. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 1, E. C.
Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 149187. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. J. 1988. Emergent Grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In Linguis-
tics in Context: Connecting, Observations, and Understanding, D. Tannen (ed.),
117134. Norwood: Ablex.
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kahr, J. C. 1976. The renewal of case morphology: Sources and constraints. Working
Papers on Language Universals 20: 107151.
Kastovsky, D. 1974. Word-formation, case grammar, and denominal adjectives. Anglia
92: 154.
Keller, R. 1995. Zeichentheorie. Tbingen/Basel: A. Francke Verlag.
Kuryowicz, J. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Esquisses Linguistiques
2: 3854.
Larreya, P. 1986. Amalgames Lexicaux et Verbs de Jugement en Anglais. Lexique-
Grammaire-Domaine Anglais, 7994. Universit de Saint-tienne, Travaux
XXXXVII.
Lehmann, Chr. 1985. Grammaticalisation: Synchronic variation and diachronic change.
Lingua e stile 20: 303318.
Lehmann, Chr. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Mnchen/Newcastle: LINCOM
EUROPA.
Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A. 1974. Historical change and word order: A case study in
Chinese and its implications. In Historical Linguistics I: Syntax, Morphology,
Internal and Comparative Reconstruction, J. M. Anderson and C. Jones (eds),
199218. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Lipka, L. 1977. Lexikalisierung, Idiomatisierung und Hypostasierung als Probleme einer
synchronischen Wortbildungslehre. In Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung,
H. E. Brekle and D. Kastovsky (eds), 155164. Bonn: Bouvier.
Ldtke, H. 1996. Changement linguistique. In Kontaktlinguistik Contact Linguistics
Linguistique de contact, vol. 1, H. Goebl, P. H. Nelde, Z. Star and W. Wlck
(eds), 526540. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
McMahon, A. M. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Meillet, A. 1912. Lvolution des formes grammaticales. In Linguistique Historique et
Linguistique Gnrale, A. Meillet (ed.), 131148. Paris: Champion.
Meillet, A. 1925. La mthode comparative en linguistique historique. Paris: Champion.
Palander-Collin, M. 1996. The rise and fall of METHINKS. In Socio-linguistics and
Language History Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence,
Part III: Individual changes in social focus [Language and Computers: Studies in
practical linguistics. 15], T. Nevalainen and H. Raumolin-Brunberg (eds), 131149.
Amsterdam Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
Schwarze, Chr. and Wunderlich, D. 1985. Handbuch der Lexikologie. Knigstein /Ts:
Athenum.
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In
Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and
the Lexicon, T. Shopen (ed.), 57149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
370 ILSE WISCHER
semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization In Perspectives on Historical
Linguistics, W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (eds), 245271. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. 2 vols.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. and Knig, E. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization
revisited. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 1, E. C. Traugott and B. Heine
Wischer, I. 1997. Lexikalisierung versus Grammatikalisierung Gemeinsamkeiten und
Unterschiede. Papiere zur Linguistik der Universitt Klagenfurt 2/97: 121134.
Name index
A
Abbott 332
Abraham 911, 189
Adamson 1, 8, 19, 23, 27, 175
Aijmer 357, 363364, 366367
Akimoto 45
Aland 244
Alexander 332
Allen, A. 252, 270
Allen, C. 7, 29
Andersen 225
Anderson, J 289
Anderson, N. 220, 224
Anttila 329
dArdenne 286, 288, 305
Atwood 337
Auwera, van der 92, 164
B
Bailey 317
Ball 272
Bammesberger 244
Barber 68
Bauer, G. 338
Bauer, L. 358, 364, 367
Bechtel 270
Beekes 225
Beer 270
Behaghel 311
Behre 313
Benson 162
Berndt 202203
Besten 189
Biber 61, 178179, 182, 185
Biber et al. 61
le Bidois 302
Blake 286
Bobaljik 188189, 198
Bock 253
Bolinger 5759, 63, 311
Bopp 151
Bosworth 231
Boyland 119, 325
Brekle 366
Brinton 69, 7879, 8182, 141, 149,
173, 229, 235236, 239, 243,
245246, 257259, 261262, 264,
268, 332, 338, 361, 363, 366367
Brorstrm 120, 332, 338, 339, 343
Brown, K. 60
Brown, P. 82
Brown, R. 6869
Brunner 194195, 198, 330, 335,
337338
Bruyn 26, 164
Burnham 104
Bybee 13, 1617, 19, 28, 116, 149,
151152, 164, 332, 344, 366
C
Calder 302
Callaway 252253, 259, 272
Cameron 230, 272
Campbell, A. 104, 188189, 196,
283, 313
372 NAME INDEX
Campbell, L. 1718, 32, 149, 153,
213
Carey 343
Carlson 59
Castellan 256
Cedergren 349
Chafe 6
Chen 5, 7, 9294, 359
Chomsky 187188, 199
Christian et al. 333, 338
Christophersen 276, 279, 285
Clark 305
Claudi 6, 13, 269, 367
Coard 349
Collinder 219, 226
Comrie 338
Conrad 178, 182, 185
Cosmides 213
Coulmas 366
Coulomb 55, 58
Cowie 224
de la Cruz 115
Crystal 82, 184
Curme 332, 336, 338, 341
D
Dabrowska 32
Dahl 312, 341
Dancygier 312, 317
David 332
Davies 224
DEloia 346
Demske 2728
Denison 1, 6, 60, 113114, 118, 121,
125, 128, 130132, 134, 140142,
144, 182, 254, 319, 325, 332,
334337, 344345, 349350
Deumert 224
Deutscher 22
Diehn 305
Diewald 14
Dixon 4245, 47, 48, 50, 61, 64
Domingue 7
Doyle 164
Dressler 150
Dube 333
DuBois 29
E
Einenkel 256
Elhanon 47
Ellegrd 114, 126
Elliott 284
Elsness 330, 332, 335, 338339,
345347, 349350
Enkvist 237, 246, 262264
Eze 333
F
Farquhar 79
Feagin 333
Fenn 338339
Fillmore 318, 321, 325
Filppula 333
Finegan 178, 182, 185
Finell 40
Fischer 1, 67, 11, 17, 2223, 27, 30,
33, 6364, 90, 108, 149150,
153156, 158159, 161165,
172173, 224, 261, 272, 314, 366
Fitzmaurice 1, 7, 11, 14, 2223, 31,
33, 165, 179 see also Wright, S.
Fnagy 30
Fraser 60
Freed 257
Fridn 330, 332, 335338, 343, 345
Fries 332
Funk 182
Funke 257, 272
G
Gaaf 253
Gabelentz 9
Geerts et al. 118, 143
Gelderen, van 8, 11, 14, 187, 198
Gerritsen 156
NAME INDEX 373
Gilman 61, 6869
Givn 12, 13, 150, 155, 216, 356,
367
Goolden 238, 246
Grlach 7
Greenberg 276, 304
Gronemeyer 135
H
Haegeman 137
Haiman 2829, 47, 85, 107, 109, 150,
154, 311, 323324
Halliday 67, 81
Hansen et al. 366367
Harris, A.C. 1718, 32, 149, 153, 213
Harris, J. 333, 335, 349
Harris, M. 85, 91, 94, 96, 104,
322323, 332
Haspelmath 910, 12, 21, 32, 153,
161, 164, 225, 270
Healey 244, 272
Hecht 242
Heine 67, 1316, 20, 26, 32, 149,
151152, 269, 329330, 355,
366367
Heinrichs 278, 304
Herold 191
Hetzron 47
Himmelmann 276277
Hock 329
Hoekstra 270
Hoffmann 292
Hofstetter 244
Holmberg 189, 198
Holmqvist 192
Holt 157
Hopper 14, 10, 1217, 23, 78,
8182, 8586, 134, 149152, 159,
165, 173, 183, 207, 209, 218, 222,
229, 247, 263, 329330, 340,
366367
Horn 175
Horrall 314
Huang 199
Huddleston 61, 174, 177
Hulthn 302
Humboldt 151, 154
Hnnemeyer 13, 270, 367
Hurford 224
I
Iversen 302
J
Jaeggli 187, 199
James 312, 324
Janda 165
Jespersen 30, 133135, 137, 154, 188,
196, 198, 335, 345
Johansson 178, 182, 185
Jonas 188189, 198
Jones 288293, 301302, 305306
Joseph 153
K
Kahr 367
Kallen 332333, 338, 347, 349350
Kastovsky 366
Kaufman 7, 333
Keller 32, 358359, 366
Kemenade, van 165, 188, 272, 292
Kemmer 13
Kerkhof 284
Kim 237, 246
Kiparsky 41, 263
Klein-Andreu 61
Koch 277
Kolln 182
Knig 7, 18, 8588, 9091, 94,
9698, 100, 103104, 109, 359
Koopman 256
Kopytko 69
Krner 286
Kornexl 244
Kossuth 140, 144
Krahe 225
374 NAME INDEX
Kramsky 278
Kroch 272
Kroon 235, 241, 244, 245
Kuhn 195
Kurath et al. 244
Kuryowicz 269, 366
Kyt 61, 108109, 312
L
Laanest 226
Labov 349
Lakoff 129
Landwehr 286
Langacker 150
Larreya 363
Larsen 244
Lass 1, 78, 2022, 27, 164, 209,
212213, 220, 225
Leech 82, 178, 182, 185, 338
Leek 63, 162163
Lehmann 5, 12, 2325, 28, 149, 158,
159, 165, 276, 356, 366
Lenker 45, 19, 235, 244, 246, 357
Leuschner 85, 88
Levinson 69, 82
Li 366
Lightfoot 10, 22, 32, 59, 63, 153, 164
Lipka 366
Liuzza 244
Los 56, 8, 162163, 272
Ldtke 25, 32, 364
Luick 306
Lyell 216
Lyons 55, 61, 63
M
Macauley 156, 162
Mahler 244
Manabe 162
Marckwardt 332
Markus 305
Matthews 6061, 175
Mtzner 105
Mayerthaler 150
McCawley 338
McColl Millar 6, 26, 287, 294,
305306
McMahon 28, 359
Meillet 2, 9, 18, 32, 151, 225226,
269, 329, 356, 359
Melchers 333, 338
Mencken 330, 332
Menner 332, 337
Mey 82
Micillo 279
Milner 55
Minkova 256, 287288, 296, 305
Mitchell 90, 104, 126, 144, 188, 230,
245, 247, 256257, 260, 263, 272,
279, 281, 313, 330, 332, 335, 339,
349
Mithun 6, 27
Molencki 6, 31, 316317, 319
Montgomery 115
Morris 157158
Moss 129, 132133, 143, 257
Mufwene 349
Mulac 71, 7778
Murane 323
Mustanoja 154, 156, 158, 260, 314,
335336, 343
N
Nagle 114115
Nakamura 131, 143
Nnny 150
Nehls 131
Nevalainen 69
Newmeyer 910, 32, 224
Nicholls 287, 294, 305306
Nichols 183
Norde 164
Nordlinger 177
Noseworthy 332333
O
Ogura 114, 143
Overdiep 157159
NAME INDEX 375
P
Pagliuca 116, 149, 332
Palander-Collin 363
Palmer 176
Penny 322
Perkins 116, 149, 332
Pervaz 286, 288, 292, 305
Peters 54
Phillipps 143
Pinker 225
Pintzuk 10
Plank 12, 29, 59, 115, 154, 161, 173
Platzack 189, 198
Pope 252
Poplack 333, 349350
Popper 20
Pousada 333
Poussa 7
Pratt 130, 144
Purdy 280281
Putten, van der 270
Q
Quirk 104, 188, 196, 279
Quirk et al. 43, 45, 55, 60, 67, 81, 82,
8688, 108109, 233, 245, 318, 343
R
Radford 57
Ramat 5, 6, 61
Rand 350
Raumolin-Brunberg 69
Reh 6, 151, 366
Rennhard 305
Reppen 179
Ricca 61
Riggert 253, 260261
Ringe 224225
Rissanen 317318
Roberts 11
Robinson 81, 263
Rohdenburg 164
Ropers 201
Rosenbach 29, 32, 184
Ross, A.S.C. 281, 301
Ross, J.R. 68
Rousseau 349
Rubba 17, 151
Rydn 120, 332, 338339, 343
S
Sar 187, 199
Samuels 284
Sankoff 333, 349350
Sato 245
Saussure 9
Schiffrin 82, 245, 247
Schrader 200
Schreiber 234, 245
Schwarze 366
Scur 333, 338
Seidler 286, 305
Selig 304
Siegel 256
Skeat 201, 203, 233, 238, 240,
245246
Smith, C. 59
Smith, JC 224
Sol 203
Spamer 59, 63, 282285
Stampe 150
Stanley 294, 299, 306
Stein 19, 32, 61, 108, 163, 271, 366
Stockwell 256, 263
Stoett 156157
Strang 130, 134136, 330, 334335,
337338
Swan 3940, 244245, 318
Swanton 239, 245
Sweet 197, 220
Sweetser 4, 18, 82, 173, 182, 312, 317
Szemernyi 225
T
Tabakowska 30
Tabor 25
376 NAME INDEX
Tagliamonte 4, 6, 8, 14, 26, 333,
349350
Talmy 366
Taraldsen 199
Teyssier 55, 63
Thomas 82
Thomason 7, 207, 216, 333
Thompson 13, 71, 7778, 150151,
366
Thrinsson 263
Toller 231
Tooby 213
Traugott 25, 10, 12, 1419, 2526,
4041, 6061, 67, 79, 8182,
8586, 94, 103, 149, 151152,
159161, 163, 165, 173, 177, 183,
207, 209, 218, 222, 224, 229,
244245, 247, 329330, 332,
335338, 355356, 359, 366367
Trudgill 345
U
Ukaji 6768
Ura 199
V
Vachek 278
Vanneck 330, 332, 337
Vendler 270
Venezky 244, 272
Vezzosi 29, 32
Vincent 20, 6061, 151, 322323,
332
Visser 95, 104, 114, 117120,
125126, 128135, 137, 142143,
157158, 199200, 202, 312,
331332, 335338, 344345, 349
W
Wal 204
Wales 82
Warner 134, 144, 254
Wrvik 237, 246
Wattel 272
Wekker 118, 322
Wessn 302
Whewell 224
Whorf 43
Wilbur 264
Wischer 6, 25
Wolfram 333
Wrenn 188, 196, 279
Wright, J. 332, 337, 346
Wright, S. 19, 61 see also
Fitzmaurice
Wunderlich 366
Wurzel 150
Y
Yerkes 246
Z
Zandvoort 338
Subject index
A
ablative see case
accomplishment verbs see verb(s)
accusative see case
and innitive constructions (aci)
163
achievement verbs see verb(s)
action marker 261264
activity verbs see verb(s)
adjectives 232 see also
grammaticalization, cline(s)
affective 19, 2324, 3966 see
also lovely
characterising 5659, 64
classifying 5658, 60 see also
adjective, denominal
denominal 63
descriptive 19, 2324, 3966 see
also lovely
double 52
identifying 57, 59
postnominal 61
predicative 57, 62, 63
prenominal 61
referent-oriented see adjectives,
descriptive
semantic sub-classes of 4243
speaker-oriented see adjectives,
affective
strong/weak declension 63, 278,
282284
word order see word order
adjunct(s) 3, 60, 245 see also adjec-
tives, (strong)/weak declension;
see also adverb, manner; see
also adverbial, adjuncts
manner 233234, 243, 245
nominal 56, 63 see also compound
style 234
temporal 344345
admit see concessive, markers
adverb 78, 363
adversative 235
causal 235
conjunctive 230
consecutive 235
epistemic modal see epistemic
formation 2
manner 5, 3940, 229230, 234
scope of see scope
sentence 3940, 61 see also
disjunct
sentential 230249
word order see word order
adverbial
adjuncts 347
clauses 311
cline see grammaticalization,
cline(s)
durative 258, 260
iterative 258
scope of see scope
spatial 236
temporal 2425, 236, 246, 314
378 SUBJECT INDEX
adversative 8788, 9293, 103, 106
conjunction 235
meaning 105
particle 105
adversity 91, 96100
notion of 87
360361
African
American English 333, 343
creole origins hypothesis 333
languages 67
Afro-Asiatic 220
agreement
checking 198
endings 187206
participle 203
Aktionsart 257, 259, 266, 270
albeit see concessive, markers
alliteration 238
(al)though see concessive, markers
ambiguity 41, 5758, 299300, 302,
306
avoidance of 302
in ending 285295
in form 296298, 300
in function 302
scope ambiguity see scope
American
English 23, 31, 171186
dialects 142
languages 6
anacolutha 123
analogy 1416, 32, 149150, 152,
154, 296, 319
analytic
morphology 334
negation see negation
synthetic to analytic see synthetic
anaphor 199
anaphoric pronouns 236
animacy 29
hierarchy 159
Arabic, Moroccan 323
ARCHER corpus 49, 51, 61
article 56, 367
affixal 277
denite article 6, 26, 28, 55 see
also grammaticalization,
cline(s)
formation 275310
indenite 4
aspect 246, 346
ingressive 251275
perfective 251275
verbal 341, 343344, 348
attrition see semantic, bleaching; see
phonetic, reduction
Australian 323
autonomous see grammar,
autonomous
auxiliaries 6, 18, 251275, 367 see
also NICE criteria
combination of 111147
contracted 119
doubling of 114122
double be 127, 132133
double do 114116
double modals 114116
double passive 121122
double perfect 116120
double have 117120
perfect have + perfect be 120
double progressive 120121
xed order of 111147
multiple 339
quasi- see auxiliaries, semi-
semi- 3, 17, 23, 31, 171186
be going to 3, 56, 1617, 19,
2324, 27, 152, 159, 161,
165, 171, 173, 175,
182184
be supposed to 173, 175, 182,
184
be to 175, 175, 184
SUBJECT INDEX 379
auxiliaries, semi- (Continued)
have (got) to 18, 23, 153, 161,
171, 173174, 176, 182, 184
need to 176, 184
negation of see negation
used to 182
want to/wanna 23, 161162,
173, 175, 182183
auxiliary
future 159
have see have
periphrasis 318
status 253
B
background(ing) 239240, 262263
Baltic 278, 323
Balto-Finnic 211212, 218220, 226
be
double see auxiliaries, doubling of
lexical 124
main verb 127
mutative 113, 329354
passival 130131
passive 121123, 126132, 134,
136, 138141
perfect 120, 127, 136, 138 see
also be, mutative
progressive 129132, 134,
137141, 144
be going to see auxiliaries, semi-
be supposed to see auxiliaries, semi-
be to see auxiliaries, semi-
bleaching see semantic, bleaching
bondedness 2224, 31, 158, 172, 356
boundary marker 229, 235, 237238,
246
C
case 11, 187, 199, 276, 285286,
288290, 292294, 305
ablative 219
accusative 219, 286, 288289,
293294, 296, 305
dative 289, 293, 299, 305, 360361
essive 226
genitive 299300
inessive 211, 219
lative 219
locative 226
marker 211, 367
nominative 296, 360
oblique 292
prepositional 292
structural 292
translative 211
categoriality 59
formal 212
category shift 5255 see also
reanalysis
Celtic 302
change in progress 1314, 179
characteriser 23, 5657, 59, 60, 63
see also adjectives,
characterising; see also referent
modication
classier 23, 57, 59, 63 see also
adjectives, classifying; see also
reference modication
cline(s) see grammaticalization,
cline(s)
clitic 86, 165, 198, 210, 223224,
287, 367
closed-class 112, 359, 367
coalescence 171, 173, 183, 356
codication 304, 359
Cohesion 24
collocability 62
collocative restrictions
loosening of 101
comparative method 217, 221
comparatives, hypothetical 321
C(omplementizer) position 11,
187189, 199
compound 56, 282283 see also
adjuncts, nominal
compounding 28
380 SUBJECT INDEX
conceptual distance see distance
principle
concession see also concessive
counterfactual 91
factual 7
hypothetical 7
notion of 87
concessive
clauses 85110
clause order 107108
use of indicative 105
use of subjunctive 90, 97, 105
conditionals 7, 85110, 319
conjunct 108
correlative 87, 106
factual 7, 85110
markers 7
admit 9294
albeit 86, 91, 9496, 108
(al)though 7, 8687. 8991, 95,
9799, 103105, 108
inspite of/(in) despite of 86,
100102
even if 89, 91, 107, 319
for all 91, 99, 108
grant 9294
never so 99, 108
nevertheless 105106
notwithstanding 100, 102103,
108
typological pathway of 7
while 103
yet 8687, 105106, 108
reinforcement 91, 98
subordinator 86, 89, 92, 96
factual- 104
verbs see verb(s)
concessives
factual see concessive, clauses
hypothetical see concessive,
conditionals
concomitance
notion of 103104
condensation 356
conditional
clauses 85110
counterfactual 311328
parenthetical 107
subordinator 89, 93
conjunctions 236
adversative 235
causal 235
consecutive 235
co-ordinating 235
temporal 103
conjuncts 245
correlative 8687, 105
contact 26, 164,
Celtic 302
Norman French 302304
Norse 303304
Scandinavian 302303, 306
context 32, 164
contrast 103
notion of 8788
contrastive 87
conventionalization 23, 32, 56, 62,
173174, 363364
correlative 264 see also conjuncts,
correlative
counterfactual 105
conditional clauses see conditional,
clauses
counterfactuality 98
expression of 31
courtesy
marker 67, 7881 see also pray
subjuncts 82
creole 67, 14, 26, 164, 333
origins see also African American
English;
of Present Perfect in Saman
349
SUBJECT INDEX 381
D
Danish 277278
dative see case
experiencer 253
decategorialization 78
denite article see article
deniteness 56
functional category 275310
semantic category 275310
degemination 211
degrammaticalization 57, 2123, 29,
31, 33, 149169, 171186, 207,
213, 359, 364
deictic 218219
particle 26, 277
terms 45
deixis 275310
demonstrative 56
distal 278279, 302304
pronouns 275310
proximal 304
denotation 5556 see also scope
modication 63 see also reference
modication
deontic 19
derivation
concept of 270
derivational see also
morphology 216217, 219
morphs 219
suffixes 270
desubjectication 23, 60
desyntacticization 364
determiner 5657, 59, 63, 246,
275310
as a category 59
distal 26
functions of 56
dictionaries 230232, 244, 363
discourse
marker 5, 63, 67, 82, 229249,
261, 271, 356- 357 see also
solice; see also witodlice
operators 357
particle 4041 see also discourse,
marker; see also indeed
disjunct 60, 234, 245, 363
content 234
marking evidentiality 363
style 234, 237, 243, 245
distance principle 2829, 31
divergence 4, 23, 78, 164, 367
backward 33
do
causative 114
dummy auxiliary 123 see also do,
periphrastic
periphrastic 114, 123126, 141
substitute 123
double-base hypothesis 10, 14
doubling of auxiliaries see auxiliaries
Dravidian 217, 221
drift see synthetic to analytic
durative 258, 266, 270
adverbial see adverbial
verbs see verb(s)
durativity
diagnostic test 257
Dutch 118, 154157, 159162, 165,
172, 189, 285, 322
Middle 156157
Old 204
dynamic see verb(s)
E
economy 29, 311, 324
economic motivation 154
elision 278, 305
ellipsis 6263
of the subject 255
382 SUBJECT INDEX
emphatic
particle 94, 9698
universal quantier 96
emphasizer 233234, 238, 243
empirical 78
enrichment
lexical 25
of meaning 19
pragmatic 25
entailment 261
episode boundaries 236, 245,
261269
marker 232, 239, 241, 243244,
264, 267 see also V1, as
episode boundary
marker
epistemic
meaning 1819, 160
modal adverb 41
modality see modality
modals see modals
parentheticals see parentheticals
stance 324
essive see case
Estonian 220, 226
even if see concessive, markers
event
coda 257, 271
nucleus 257, 267
onset 257, 267
temporal stages of 257
evidentiality
marker of 355, 363, 365366
existentials 129
explanation 9, 1213, 22, 164, 207,
223
by universals 212
expressivity 29, 152
loss of 154
F
factual see concession; see concessive
falsication 7, 10, 12, 213
Farsi 276
feature
checking 188189
licensing 199
strength of 201
strong 188
Finnish 212, 218, 220, 226
focus marker 107
folk-etymology 6
for all see concessive, markers
foregrounding 5, 262264, 361, 365
forms of address 69
French 219, 302, 323
Old 270
frequency 8, 26, 53, 213214, 219,
243244, 271, 357, 365
functional
categories 1011, 13, 187
specialization 104
fusion 2425
future 3, 16
auxiliary see auxiliary
innitive see innitive
G
gelamp-construction 239241, 243,
246
gender 285, 288, 292, 294, 296,
300301, 305
change 301
grammatical 276, 281
breakdown of 301302
generalisation 164
genitive 210, 224 see also case
group 165, 210, 224225
his-genitive 225
reinterpreation 299
s-genitive 29, 32, 165, 210,
224225 see also possessives
German 59, 161, 164165, 276- 277,
281, 302, 304305, 323
dialects 59
Old High 196, 264
SUBJECT INDEX 383
get
passive 121122, 135139, 141,
143
progressive 144
Gothic 193, 195, 312
gradience 10, 59
synchronic 59
graduality 32, 151 see also
grammaticalization, gradualness
of
grammar
as system 5, 367
autonomous 4, 9, 13
change 11, 164 see also language,
change
depth 164
diachronic 153
theory of 9, 164
grammatical
categories 210
gender see gender
items
origin of 209212, 218221
see also unidirectionality,
strong form of
grammaticality 20, 212221 see also
lexicality
hierarchy 210 see also
grammaticalization see also
regrammaticalization
actuation of 1213
as a theory 2021, 32, 213, 224
as re-analysis 13
cline(s) 2, 5, 18, 22, 28, 59, 86,
207, 221224, 270
adjective/intensier cline 62
adverbial cline 40, 229, 244245
characterizer/classier cline 23
denite article 276277
derivational/inectional cline
270
lenition cline 222223
of nominal premodiers 59
subjectication see
subjectication, cline
counterexamples 207 see also
degrammaticalization; see also
unidirectionality,
counterexamples
cycle(s) 11, 18, 25, 2830, 152,
356
denition of 29 see also
grammaticalization, subtypes
of
diagnostics of 2325, 27, 165, 329,
356
discontinuous 324
formal changes 2, 25
formal/generative approaches to 2,
9, 1314
formal vs. semantic factors 2, 25
functional approaches to 2, 4, 9,
1214
generative approaches to 9
gradualness of 10, 1213, 20
implementation of 1213
mechanisms/causes of 11, 1431,
151152
parameters see grammaticalization,
diagnostics
role in English 68
role of context 32
semantic-pragmatic factors 910
semantic changes 2, 25
status of 20, 152153
types of 2, 25, 355357
typological approaches to 4, 1214
universality of 153, 213
grammemes 355
grant see concessive, markers
Greek 231, 276
grounding 239
384 SUBJECT INDEX
H
Hausa 323
have
auxiliary 329354
double see auxiliaries, doubling of:
double perfect
German and Dutch cognates 18
modal 138
perfect 112, 126129, 136,
138139, 141
possessive 184
have (got) to see auxiliaries, semi-
hedge 184
Helsinki Corpus 40, 51, 85, 9293,
9597, 99101, 103, 106109, 156,
165, 191, 195197, 312, 318, 366
hiatus 286287, 305
avoidance of 287
homonomy 60, 311312
Hungarian 323
I
I(nection) position 188
I think 357
icon(s) 359, 366
iconic 154155, 163
motivation 2930, 154
pole 29, 31, 154
iconicity 2831, 43, 149151 see
also isomorphism; see also
onomatopoeia; see also distance
principle
diagrammatic 150
imagic 150
ideational level see language,
functions/levels
identier 57, 5960, 63 see also
adjectives, identifying
idiomaticization 355, 358, 366
if-clause 107
imperative see mood
impersonal 6, 253
verbs see verb(s)
implicatures 17, 26
inchoative
marker 5
verbs see verb(s)
indeed
as a discourse particle 41, 63
as an intensier 63
indicative see mood
indirect
object 290
requests 68
Indo-European 209, 217221, 225
Indo-Uralic 220
inductive generalizations 214217
inessive see case
inferences 1718, 26, 152, 359
innitival see also word order,
innitival constructions
complements 162, 251275
marker to 7, 2223, 27, 3031,
153169, 171186 see also
innitive, to-innitive
innitive 3 see also innitival; see
also negation, and innitive VPs
bare innitive 154, 157, 163, 251275
coordinated 159
Finnish 225
future 159
innitival complements 251
inected see innitive, to-innitive
negative (split) innitives 23, 31,
171186
passive 160
plain see innitive, bare innitive
purposive 17
split innitives 158, 165, 171186
to-innitive 5, 18, 70, 72, 149169,
251275 see also innitival,
marker to
complements 70, 72
intransitive 18
uninected see innitive, bare
innitive
SUBJECT INDEX 385
inection 219, 223, 270 see also
grammaticalization, cline(s):
derivational/inectional cline
overt 188189
reduced 187206
rich 188189
inectional
endings see also past tense,
endings
loss of 63
morphology 216217, 219
passive 112
ingressive aspectualizers see verb(s),
inchoative
inspite of/(in) despite of see
concessive, markers
intensier 19, 2324, 27, 5257,
6264 see also very
truth- 233, 238, 243, 247
indeed see indeed
lovely see lovely
very 5354
interpersonal/-actional level see
language functions/levels
interjection 67, 78, 80
interjectional
function 81
marker 78
inversion 99100, 108, 196, 317, 319
Irish 366
isolating 216217, 221
isomorphic 155, 163
isomorphism 31, 149150, 154155, 163
between protasis and apodosis
311328
lack of 155
Italian 199, 270, 322
dialects 203
iterative 258, 263, 270
adverbial see adverbial
contexts 343
J
juxtaposition 63
K
Karelian 218, 220
Kartvelian 220
L
language
change 1011, 164 see also
grammar, change
contact see contact
functions/levels 235, 245, 271
ideational 81, 245
interactional/-personal 81, 235,
245
textual 79, 81, 235, 237, 241,
245, 357
locus of 1013, 22, 164 see also
language, change; see also
grammar, change
processing 29
Latin 231, 235, 244, 270, 276
aci 163
classical 322
copula 218
dictionaries 232
discourse particles 235
futures 218
imperfects 218
translations 201, 230231, 233,
238, 244, 246247, 260
lative see case
layering 4, 8, 10, 13, 23, 78, 229,
329354
lenition cline see grammaticalization,
cline(s)
letter salutations 69
levelling
morphological 285
morphophonemic 314
lexical diffusion 223
lexicality 20, 210212 see also
grammaticality
386 SUBJECT INDEX
lexicalization 56, 21, 56, 60, 86, 122,
355371
in generative grammar 189
types of 358360, 367
lexicography 230231
lexicon 5, 358, 360, 363364, 367
literary language 1516
Longman Spoken and Written English
Corpus 178, 182, 185
lovely 3966
M
manner
adjuncts see adjuncts
adverbs see adverbs
markedness 212, 214, 225
Me-Thee 220221
mens speech
mental space embedding 324
metaphor 1416, 149, 152, 164, 359,
364
methinks 6, 355371
metonym(y) 1617, 152, 164, 359,
364, 367
Minimalist framework 187
Mitian see Me-Thee
modal
auxiliaries see modals
bleached (in counterfactual
conditionals) 315
particle 357 see also I think
periphrasis 31
modality 233 see also mood
epistemic 366
optative 92, 94, 321
use in counterfactual conditionals
312
use of subjunctive 94
modals 10, 141, 153, 161, 165, 254, 271
epistemic 78, 115
quasi- see auxiliaries, semi-
root 115
subjectication of 19
(apodosis) 315317
(protasis) 318322
modier 59, 283 see also
premodiers
non-restrictive 57
post-adjectival 42, 56
pre-adjectival 42, 44, 56
restrictive 57
monosyllables 218219
mood 324 see also modals
imperative 68, 7073, 7577, 80,
188189, 192, 196, 360
indicative 192, 203
313, 318
subjunctive 31, 90100, 188189,
192193, 196 see also
concessive, clauses;
see also modality, optative
/indicative contrast 313, 316
past subjunctive
use in counterfactual
conditionals 315, 318
preterite subjunctive
use in counterfactual
conditionals 316
that-clauses 271272
313314, 317318, 325
motivation 9, 2830, 102, 108 see
also iconic; see also iconicity;
see also economic
competing 29
pragmatic 180
movement 10, 188189, 198
overt 189190, 198
Multivariate analysis 339, 342, 350
mutative 127
be see be
verbs see verb(s)
SUBJECT INDEX 387
N
naturalness 150, 212
need to see auxiliaries, semi-
negation 31 see also operator
analytic 175
and innitive VPs 177178
Finnish 212
of semi-auxiliaries 175176
synthetic 175
negative see also polarity
double 99, 184
particle 99
raising 31, 175, 179
scope see scope
split innitive see innitive
neutralisation 281, 301302
never so see concessive, markers
nevertheless see concessive, markers
New Zealand English 215
NICE criteria 182
Norse, Old 26
Nostratic 217, 220, 225
notwithstanding see concessive,
markers
noun phrase
German 27
subjectivity in see subjectivity, in
NP
syntactic-semantic change 3966
word order in see word order
number 11, 16, 187206, 301
O
obligatorication 356357
OED
quotation database 51, 61
onginnan/beginnan 5, 141, 144,
251275
onomatopoeia 150
operator 357, 366
discourse see discourse
grammatical 212
negating 212
optative see modality
Oxford Text Archive 204
P
palatalisation 366
Papua-New Guinea 323
paradigmaticization 356357
parenthetical(s) 63, 71, 7778, 80, 82
see also pray
conditionals see conditional, clauses
epistemic 7778
suppositional 78
participles
lone past participles 331, 337338,
346349
unmarked 336337
passival 121, 128, 130
passive 112
be see be
get see get
innitive see innitive
progressive 131132, 134, 140
weoran 144
wurthe 128, 138
past tense see also preterite
backshifted 98, 105
endings 188
marker 24
pathway(s) see grammaticaliztion,
cline(s)
perfect see also present perfect
be see be
continuative 338, 343, 350
experiental 338, 343, 350
have see have
resultative 338, 343, 350
perfective
markers 5
verb 257
performative 68, 234, 245
speech acts 233
388 SUBJECT INDEX
periphrasis 256
auxiliary see auxiliary
periphrastic constructions 111147,
316, 335
do see do
preterite see preterite
persistence 23, 78, 134, 149,
154155, 163, 330, 348
person 11
features 187, 198199, 204
rst/second/third 187206
split 201
phi-features 199
phonetic
attrition see phonetic, reduction
harmony 325
reduction 23, 22, 25, 32, 74,
155156, 161162, 172, 247,
278, 286, 293, 316, 356357,
363364
phonogenesis 219
pleonastic 258
pluperfect 31
314315, 317, 322, 324- 325
plural 16, 210
polarity
in negative VPs 174178
politeness 6769, 79, 8182
marker of 5
polysemous 23, 45, 230231
possessives 28, 56, 59 see also
genitive
possible worlds 245, 262, 267268
pragmatic
enrichment see enrichment
inferences see inferences
motivation see motivation
particle 62
pragmaticalization 63, 357, 364
pray 45, 6784
premodiers
functional classication of 5556
prescriptive
grammar/grammarians 172, 322,
325, 339
tradition 117
present perfect 4, 26, 329354
specialization of see specialization
present tense endings 187206
present-preterite verbs see verb(s)
prestige 304, 333
preterite 329354 see also past tense
periphrastic 258
preterite subjunctive see mood,
subjunctive
324
pro-drop 11, 187, 199204
progressive see also passive
be see be
get see get
grammaticalization of 141, 144
pronouns 11, 246
anaphoric see anaphoric
demonstrative see demonstrative
personal 11, 280
relative 280
prosodic
contours 247
salience 287
protolanguage 217
prototypicality 212
Proto-
(Balto)-Finnic 219220
IE 220
Uralic 218220
punctual
situation 266
verb see verb(s)
purposive 3, 23, 31 see also
innitive
SUBJECT INDEX 389
Q
quantier 56, 59, 63 see also
emphatic, universal quantier
quantity principle 155
question
complements 7576
main clause 188
R
360361
reconstruction 7, 21, 209, 216219,
221
reanalysis 10, 1315, 1719, 27, 32,
5255, 59, 63, 112, 122, 134,
141, 149, 152, 183, 363364,
366367
in generative grammar 10
recursive qualication 4344
recursiveness 63
reference 5556
modication 63
referent modication 63
regrammaticalization 6, 304
renouvellement 226
resultative perfect see perfect
retrogression 102 see also
degrammaticalization
routinization 29, 152
Russian 275, 319
S
Saman English 4, 14, 26, 329354
Scandinavian 276, 281, 302
schwa
deletion 288, 305
loss 287
scope 356357
ambiguity 57
denotative 5657, 60
increase in 25, 245, 357, 363
of adverbials 41
of adverbs 3940, 234
of negative 39, 174178
reduction of 22, 2425, 4344,
158159, 172, 245, 357
Scots 115, 125126, 215, 305
semantic
attrition see semantic, bleaching
bleaching 1719, 25, 54, 62, 80,
82, 112, 141, 151, 173, 229,
237, 243, 251253, 256260,
270271, 272, 315, 321, 344,
348, 356, 364
change 3, 79, 151, 164, 359 see
also unidirectionality, of
semantic change
gap 26, 275
integrity 155157, 159161, 172
loading 210
shift 5253
specialization see specialization
semanticization 152, 173
semi-auxiliaries see auxiliaries, semi-
Semitic 217, 221
sentence adverbial see adverb,
sentential
Sicilian 322
Slavonic 278, 323
solice 5, 229249
source concepts 1516, 26
South African English 215
Spanish 199, 322
specialization 26, 78, 299, 301302,
330, 348, 363
of present perfect 344, 346, 348
standardization 325
statistical modeling techniques 349
structuralism 4, 9, 28
style
adjunct see adjunct, style
disjunct see disjunct, style
stylistic function 263
subject
agentive 160
expletive 159
inanimate 160, 234, 321
390 SUBJECT INDEX
subject (Continued)
non-agentive 159
null 187188, 199 see also pro-drop
subjectication 5, 19, 27, 32, 3966,
79, 229249, 356357, 363 see
also desubjectication
cline 45, 61, 67, 79, 82, 356
subjective 19, 176, 363
-objective polarity 55
subjectivity 19, 23, 363, 365
and word order 19, 23, 32, 3966
in NP 19, 23, 32, 3966
subjectivisation see subjectication
subjunctive see mood
subjuncts 245 see also courtesy,
subjuncts
substratum 26, 164
superlatives 56
suppletive forms 188
Swahili 323
syllabication 211
symbol 359, 363, 366
symbolic pole 29, 154
symbolication 359, 364, 366
synchrony vs. diachrony 4, 9, 1213
synonymy 311312
syntactic change 3, 9, 16, 207 see
also grammaticalization, formal
changes
synthetic to analytic 6, 187, 276
T
temporal
adjunct see adjunct
conjunction see conjunction
disambiguation 341, 344345
distance 341343, 346, 350 see
also perfect, continuative
tense
marker 24
shift 162163
textual function/level see language,
functions/levels
that
clauses 162163
deletion 71, 7778, 366
determiner 26
thematic 218
discontinuity 229, 235, 237238,
243, 256, 262263, 265,
267269, 271
marker of 5
though see concessive, markers
topicality 29
topicalisation 41
Topic-drop 199200
translative see case
truth-intensier see intensier
typological 7, 26, 183, 217, 276
diversity 216217
U
unidirectionality 7, 1923, 27, 79,
149, 150153, 164, 184,
207227, 364, 367
counterexamples 2022, 165, 208,
213214, 219, 225, 367 see
also grammaticalization,
counterexamples
empirical basis of 213215
of semantic change 60
strong form 209, 216218
weak form of 216
uniformitarianism 2122, 216218
unreality 313
expression of 116120
Uralic 209, 217, 220, 226
used to see auxiliaries, semi-
V
V1 254256, 261, 263, 271
as episode boundary marker
267269
variation 3, 8, 10, 14 see also
layering
SUBJECT INDEX 391
Variability 24
paradigmatic 24
syntagmatic 24
variationist approach 329354
Vepsian 226
Verb
rst see V1
morphology 11
movement 204
second 188189, 254
Subject (VS) 190198, 263 see
also inversion
three-verb cluster 142
verbal
agreement
loss of 187206
aspect see aspect
endings 11 see also verbal,
inections
fusion of 28
preservation of 11
reduction of 11
inections 187206
ordering of 28
verb(s)
accomplishment 257
achievement 258
activity 257
concessive 9294
directional 3, 1617
durative 257
dynamic 343344, 347, 350
impersonal 355371
inchoative 251275 see also
onginnan/beginnan
irregular 188
mental state 343
mutative 344, 347348, 350 see
also be, mutative
non-stative 343
perception 162163, 343
present-preterite 204
punctual 258, 263
stative 132, 258, 343344, 347,
350
strong 188, 195
weak 188, 195, 218
volitionality 31
vowel harmony 226
W
want to/wanna see auxiliaries, semi-
wh-
clause 7273
complements 76
question 7277
while see concessive, markers
witodlice 5, 229249
womens speech 79, 82
word order 11, 18, 102, 187, 190,
192, 194, 197, 360361, 367 see
also inversion
adjectives 4245
adverbs 3940, 61
and subjectivity see subjectivity
xed 335
innitival constructions 253256
noun phrase 23, 32, 45, 282284
of nominal premodiers 3966
possessive constructions 29
Y
yet see concessive, markers
Yiddish 215
Yoruba 323
a 5, 237, 243
as a discourse marker 237,
261263
clauses 237
sentence-initial 246
a V constructions 254, 256, 261,
263
eah 89, 104
In the STUDIES IN LANGUAGE COMPANION SERIES (SLCS) the following volumes
have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication:
1. ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations. Work-
shop studies prepared for the 12th Conference of Linguistics, Vienna, August 29th to
September 3rd, 1977. Amsterdam, 1978.
2. ANWAR, Mohamed Sami: BE and Equational Sentences in Egyptian Colloquial Arabic.
Amsterdam, 1979.
3. MALKIEL, Yakov: From Particular to General Linguistics. Selected Essays 1965-1978.
With an introd. by the author + indices. Amsterdam, 1983.
4. LLOYD, Albert L.: Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory
of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. Amsterdam, 1979.
5. HAIMAN, John: Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea.
Amsterdam, 1980.
6. VAGO, Robert (ed.): Issues in Vowel Harmony. Proceedings of the CUNY Linguistics
Conference on Vowel Harmony (May 14, 1977). Amsterdam, 1980.
7. PARRET, H., J. VERSCHUEREN, M. SBIS (eds): Possibilities and Limitations of
Pragmatics. Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8-14, 1979. Am-
sterdam, 1981.
8. BARTH, E.M. & J.L. MARTENS (eds): Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation.
Containing the Contributions to the Groningen Conference on the Theory of Argumenta-
tion, Groningen, October 1978. Amsterdam, 1982.
9. LANG, Ewald: The Semantics of Coordination. Amsterdam, 1984.(English transl. by John
Pheby from the German orig. edition Semantik der koordinativen Verknpfung, Berlin,
1977.)
10. DRESSLER, Wolfgang U., Willi MAYERTHALER, Oswald PANAGL & Wolfgang U.
WURZEL: Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam, 1987.
11. PANHUIS, Dirk G.J.: The Communicative Perspective in the Sentence: A Study of Latin
Word Order. Amsterdam, 1982.
12. PINKSTER, Harm (ed.): Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st
Intern. Coll. on Latin Linguistics, Amsterdam, April 1981. Amsterdam, 1983.
13. REESINK, G.: Structures and their Functions in Usan. Amsterdam, 1987.
14. BENSON, Morton, Evelyn BENSON & Robert ILSON: Lexicographic Description of
English. Amsterdam, 1986.
15. JUSTICE, David: The Semantics of Form in Arabic, in the mirror of European languages.
Amsterdam, 1987.
16. CONTE, M.E., J.S. PETFI, and E. SZER (eds): Text and Discourse Connectedness.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989.
17. CALBOLI, Gualtiero (ed.): Subordination and other Topics in Latin. Proceedings of the
Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Bologna, 1-5 April 1985. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
1989.
18. WIERZBICKA, Anna: The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988.
19. BLUST, Robert A.: Austronesian Root Theory. An Essay on the Limits of Morphology.
20. VERHAAR, John W.M. (ed.): Melanesian Pidgin and Tok Pisin. Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles on Melanesia. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
1990.
21. COLEMAN, Robert (ed.): New Studies in Latin Linguistics. Proceedings of the 4th
International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia, 1991.
22. McGREGOR, William: A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
1990.
23. COMRIE, Bernard and Maria POLINSKY (eds): Causatives and Transitivity. Amster-
dam/Philadelphia, 1993.
24. BHAT, D.N.S. The Adjectival Category. Criteria for differentiation and identification.
25. GODDARD, Cliff and Anna WIERZBICKA (eds): Semantics and Lexical Universals.
Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994.
26. LIMA, Susan D., Roberta L. CORRIGAN and Gregory K. IVERSON (eds): The Reality of
Linguistic Rules. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994.
27. ABRAHAM, Werner, T. GIVN and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Discourse Grammar
and Typology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995.
28. HERMAN, Jzsef: Linguistic Studies on Latin: Selected papers from the 6th international
colloquium on Latin linguistics, Budapest, 2-27 March, 1991. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
1994.
29. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Elisabeth et al. (eds): Content, Expression and Structure. Studies
in Danish functional grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.
30. HUFFMAN, Alan: The Categories of Grammar. French lui and le. Amsterdam/Philadel-
phia, 1997.
31. WANNER, Leo (ed.): Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing.
32. FRAJZYNGIER, Zygmunt: Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence. A case study in
Chadic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.
33. VELAZQUEZ-CASTILLO, Maura: The Grammar of Possession. Inalienability, incorpora-
tion and possessor ascension in Guaran. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.
34. HATAV, Galia: The Semantics of Aspect and Modality. Evidence from English and Biblical
Hebrew. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997.
35. MATSUMOTO, Yoshiko: Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese. A frame semantic
approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997.
36. KAMIO, Akio (ed.): Directions in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997.
37. HARVEY, Mark and Nicholas REID (eds): Nominal Classification in Aboriginal Australia.
38. HACKING, Jane F.: Coding the Hypothetical. A Comparative Typology of Conditionals in
Russian and Macedonian. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998.
39. WANNER, Leo (ed.): Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
1997.
40. BIRNER, Betty and Gregory WARD: Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in
English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998.
41. DARNELL, Michael, Edith MORAVSCIK, Michael NOONAN, Frederick NEWMEYER
and Kathleen WHEATLY (eds): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I:
General papers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999.
42. DARNELL, Michael, Edith MORAVSCIK, Michael NOONAN, Frederick NEWMEYER
and Kathleen WHEATLY (eds): Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume II:
Case studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999.
43. OLBERTZ, Hella, Kees HENGEVELD and Jess Snchez GARCA (eds): The Structure of
the Lexicon in Functional Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998.
44. HANNAY, Mike and A. Machtelt BOLKESTEIN (eds): Functional Grammar and Verbal
Interaction. 1998.
45. COLLINS, Peter and David LEE (eds): The Clause in English. In honour of Rodney
Huddleston. 1999.
46. YAMAMOTO, Mutsumi: Animacy and Reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguis-
tics. 1999.
47. BRINTON, Laurel J. and Minoji AKIMOTO (eds): ollocational and Idiomatic Aspects of
Composite Predicates in the History of English. 1999.
48. MANNEY, Linda Joyce: Middle Voice in Modern Greek. Meaning and function of an
inflectional category. 2000.
49. BHAT, D.N.S.: The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. 1999.
50. ABRAHAM, Werner and Leonid KULIKOV (eds): Transitivity, Causativity, and TAM.
In honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov. 1999.
51. ZIEGELER, Debra: Hypothetical Modality. Grammaticalisation in an L2 dialect. 2000.
52. TORRES CACOULLOS, Rena: Grammaticization, Synchronic Variation, and Language
Contact.A study of Spanish progressive -ndo constructions. 2000.
53. FISCHER, Olga, Anette ROSENBACH and Dieter STEIN (eds.): Pathways of Change.
Grammaticalization in English. 2000.
54. DAHL, sten and Maria KOPTJEVSKAJA TAMM (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages.
Volume 1: Past and Present. n.y.p.
55. DAHL, sten and Maria KOPTJEVSKAJA TAMM (eds.): Circum-Baltic Languages.
Volume 2: Grammar and Typology. n.y.p.
56. FAARLUND, Jan Terje (ed.): Grammatical Relations in Change. 2001.
57. MELC
UK, Igor: Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The semantic-

communicative structure of sentences. n.y.p.
58. MAYLOR, Brian Roger: Lexical Template Morphology. Change of state and the verbal
prefixes in German. n.y.p.

Fischer 2000 Pathways-English

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Fischer 2000 Pathways-English

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PATHWAYS OF CHANGE

UK, Igor: Communicative Organization in Natural Language. The semantic-

Potrebbero piacerti anche