Cynthia L. Allen
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199216680
- eISBN:
- 9780191711893
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199216680.003.0004
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, English Language
By the end of the Middle English period, the -s genitive in Middle English had changed its character. This chapter documents the evidence for the nature of this possessive marker in Early and Late ...
More
By the end of the Middle English period, the -s genitive in Middle English had changed its character. This chapter documents the evidence for the nature of this possessive marker in Early and Late Middle English as well as the rise of the group genitive.Less
By the end of the Middle English period, the -s genitive in Middle English had changed its character. This chapter documents the evidence for the nature of this possessive marker in Early and Late Middle English as well as the rise of the group genitive.
D. Gary Miller
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- January 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199583423
- eISBN:
- 9780191723438
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199583423.003.0011
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Theoretical Linguistics
The old hypotheses of teleology and equilibrium are illusions. Shifts do not fill holes to create symmetrical systems. Rather, sounds shift by phonetically and perceptually motivated mechanisms, and ...
More
The old hypotheses of teleology and equilibrium are illusions. Shifts do not fill holes to create symmetrical systems. Rather, sounds shift by phonetically and perceptually motivated mechanisms, and the selection of those changes is constrained (at least) by prototype perception. Perceptual space accounts for chain shifts better than system dependence or the idea that all vowel changes are independent. Tensed vowels are instrumentally more peripheral than non‐tensed and can rhyme with them. This provides a valuable clue to the Early Middle English vowels. The Ormulum [c12], which contextually writes VC for long vowels and VCC for short, rarely distinguishes the Old English long vowels from short vowels in open syllables. Instrumental evidence invites the hypothesis that open syllable lengthening had begun and that the old and new long vowels rhymed, so could be written the same way.Less
The old hypotheses of teleology and equilibrium are illusions. Shifts do not fill holes to create symmetrical systems. Rather, sounds shift by phonetically and perceptually motivated mechanisms, and the selection of those changes is constrained (at least) by prototype perception. Perceptual space accounts for chain shifts better than system dependence or the idea that all vowel changes are independent. Tensed vowels are instrumentally more peripheral than non‐tensed and can rhyme with them. This provides a valuable clue to the Early Middle English vowels. The Ormulum [c12], which contextually writes VC for long vowels and VCC for short, rarely distinguishes the Old English long vowels from short vowels in open syllables. Instrumental evidence invites the hypothesis that open syllable lengthening had begun and that the old and new long vowels rhymed, so could be written the same way.
Cynthia L. Allen
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- November 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780198832263
- eISBN:
- 9780191870927
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198832263.001.0001
- Subject:
- Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, Syntax and Morphology
This book presents the results of a corpus-based case study of diachronic English syntax. Present Day English is in a minority of European languages in not having a productive dative external ...
More
This book presents the results of a corpus-based case study of diachronic English syntax. Present Day English is in a minority of European languages in not having a productive dative external possessor construction. This construction, in which the possessor is in the dative case and behaves like an element of the sentence rather than part of the possessive phrase, was in variation with internal possessors in the genitive case in Old English, especially in expressions of inalienable possession. In Middle English, internal possessors became the only productive possibility. Previous studies of this development are not systematic enough to provide an empirical base for the hypotheses that have been put forward to explain the loss of external possessors in English, and these earlier studies do not make a crucial distinction among possessa in different grammatical relations. This book traces the use of dative external possessors in the texts of the Old and Early Middle English periods and explores how well the facts fit the major proposed explanations. A key finding is that the decline of the dative construction is visible within the Old English period and seems to have begun even before we have written records. Explanations that rely completely on developments in the Early Middle English period, such as the loss of case-marking distinctions, cannot account for this early decline. It does not appear that Celtic learners of Old English failed to learn the external possessor construction, but they may have precipitated the decrease in frequency in its use.Less
This book presents the results of a corpus-based case study of diachronic English syntax. Present Day English is in a minority of European languages in not having a productive dative external possessor construction. This construction, in which the possessor is in the dative case and behaves like an element of the sentence rather than part of the possessive phrase, was in variation with internal possessors in the genitive case in Old English, especially in expressions of inalienable possession. In Middle English, internal possessors became the only productive possibility. Previous studies of this development are not systematic enough to provide an empirical base for the hypotheses that have been put forward to explain the loss of external possessors in English, and these earlier studies do not make a crucial distinction among possessa in different grammatical relations. This book traces the use of dative external possessors in the texts of the Old and Early Middle English periods and explores how well the facts fit the major proposed explanations. A key finding is that the decline of the dative construction is visible within the Old English period and seems to have begun even before we have written records. Explanations that rely completely on developments in the Early Middle English period, such as the loss of case-marking distinctions, cannot account for this early decline. It does not appear that Celtic learners of Old English failed to learn the external possessor construction, but they may have precipitated the decrease in frequency in its use.
