Early Modern English again: a corpus study and semantic analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
REMUS GERGEL ◽  
SIGRID BECK
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
Structural Approach ◽  
Theoretical Modelling ◽  
Lexical Analysis ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Late Modern

This article investigates uses of the adverb again in Early Modern English (EModE) correspondence. The study collects occurrences of again and analyses their interpretation. It reveals interesting differences in the use of again between EModE and Late Modern English (LModE) as well as Present-day English (PDE). To bring out the grammatical significance of the results, we connect the study methodologically as closely as possible with Beck, Berezovskaya & Pflugfelder's (2009) study of LModE/PDE correspondence. We show that the key diachronic alteration we observe when considering EModE is not just numerical in nature but also qualitatively distinct from the later change at the transition between LModE and PDE. At the heart of our proposal is the finding that while a structural approach to again (Rapp & von Stechow 1999; Beck 2005) is successful for characterizing the transition between LModE and PDE, a uniform analysis for the entire diachronic trajectory is not warranted; a combined theoretical modelling is required instead. Specifically, a lexical analysis relying on counterdirectionality (e.g. Fabricius-Hansen 2001) is required to capture the differences in the EModE data.

Constraints on ellipsis alternation: A view from the history of English

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Nykiel
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Form Processing ◽  
Argument Ellipsis ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
History Of ◽  
Construction Type ◽  
Semantic Dependencies ◽  
Late Modern

AbstractI offer a diachronic perspective on English ellipsis alternation, or the alternation between inclusion and omission of prepositions from remnants under sluicing and bare argument ellipsis. The relative freedom to omit prepositions from remnants has not been stable in English; this freedom is connected to the strength of semantic dependencies between prepositions and verbs. Remnants without prepositions are first attested, but remain less frequent than remnants with prepositions, as late as Early Modern English and gain in frequency following this period. I demonstrate that three constraints—correlate informativity, structural persistence, and construction type—predict ellipsis alternation in Early and Late Modern English. However, predicting ellipsis alternation in present-day English requires semantic dependencies in addition to the three constraints. The constraints can be subsumed under principles of language processing and production (considerations of accessibility, a tendency to reuse structure, and a conventionalized performance preference for efficiently accessing constituents that form processing domains), permitting a unified processing account of ellipsis alternation with cross-linguistic coverage.

The rise and development of parenthetical needless to say

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 134-159
Author(s):  
Zeltia Blanco-Suárez ◽  
Mario Serrano-Losada
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Left Periphery ◽  
General Knowledge ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Diachronic Development ◽  
Late Modern

Abstract The article traces the diachronic development of the assumed evidential needless to say. This parenthetical expression allows the speaker to make certain assertions regarding the obviousness of what s/he is about to say, thus serving as an evidential strategy that marks the information conveyed as being based on inference and/or assumed or general knowledge. Parenthetical needless to say has its roots in the Early Modern English needless to-inf construction (meaning ‘it is unnecessary to do something’), which originally licensed a wide range of infinitives. Over the course of time, however, it became restricted to uses with utterance verbs, eventually giving rise to the grammaticalized evidential expression needless to say. In fact, it is only in Late Modern English that the evidential pragmatic inferences become conventionalized and that the first parenthetical uses of the construction are attested. In Present-day English, parenthetical needless to say occurs primarily at the left periphery with forward scope.

Parenthetical reporting clauses in the history of English: the development of quotative inversion

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNA CICHOSZ
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Old English ◽  
Direct Speech ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
History Of ◽  
Main Factors ◽  
Diachronic Analysis ◽  
Late Modern ◽  
Annotated Corpora

This study is a corpus-based diachronic analysis of English reporting parentheticals, i.e. clauses introducing direct speech, placed after or in the middle of the reported message. The aim of the investigation is to trace the development of the construction throughout the history of English, establishing the main factors influencing the choice between VS and SV patterns (i.e. with and without quotative inversion respectively), showing how various reporting verbs were increasingly attracted to the construction, and demonstrating the gradual morphological reduction of the main reporting verbs: quoth and say. The study is based on syntactically annotated corpora of Old, Middle, Early Modern and Late Modern English, and uses other corpora to illustrate more recent changes. The study reveals that reporting clauses do not show regular quotative inversion with all subject types until the Early Modern English period and links this development to the emergence of the comment clause with say. It is also claimed that quotative inversion is not directly derived from the V-2 rule and that parenthetical reporting clauses have functioned as a separate construction since the Old English period.

May under verbs of hoping: Evolution of the modal system in the complements of hoping verbs in Early Modern English

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Yanovich
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Old Age ◽  
Compositional Semantics ◽  
Modal System ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Recent Innovation ◽  
Two Stages ◽  
Late Modern

The chapter traces two stages of the rise of the may-under-hope construction of Late Modern English, present in examples like (i) Dearest, I hope we may be on such terms twenty years hence. Despite the archaic feel to it, this construction is in fact a very recent innovation that arose not earlier than the sixteenth century. I conjecture that its elevated flavor does not stem from its old age, but rather was inherited from another construction, with the inflectional subjunctive under hope. Along the way, I also present evidence that the textual absence of may under verbs of hoping before the rise of this construction was not due to narrow compositional semantics.

Perfects, Resultatives, and Auxiliaries in Earlier English

2010 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas McFadden ◽  
Artemis Alexiadou
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Auxiliary Selection

In this article, we investigate the peculiar distribution of the auxiliaries have and be in Earlier English and its consequences for theories of the perfect and auxiliary selection. We argue on the basis of a large-scale corpus study that the periphrastic construction with be was restricted to a stative resultative interpretation, whereas that with have developed a wider range of uses, crucially including the experiential perfect in addition to resultatives. Support comes from comparing the Earlier English patterns with related ones in Norwegian and German for which native-speaker judgments are available. On the basis of this insight, we propose distinct formal analyses for the two constructions and show how they account for the attested patterns and changes in Middle and Early Modern English. Of particular theoretical relevance is the premise that what has been called the “perfect” is not a homogeneous, monolithic category, and that certain kinds of variation can only be understood by teasing apart the pieces involved. Earlier English and German auxiliaries have distinct distributions because their “perfects” have disinct syntactic and semantic makeups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document