The Early Modern English Short Vowels Noch Einmal, Again

Diachronica ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Lass
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Middle English ◽  
Old English ◽  
17Th Century ◽  
West Germanic ◽  
Short Vowels ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Xviie Siecle

SUMMARY The received wisdom among historians of English is that the modern quality/length distinction in the pairs /I, i:/, /u, u:/ is of ancient date, going back at least to Middle English, if not Old English or earlier (WGmc * /i, e:/, * /u, o:/ are the main sources). In a recent paper (Lass 1989), I claimed that these pairs were distinct only in length (/i, i:/, etc.) until well into the 17th century. This was contested by Minkova & Stockwell (1990) on the grounds that, inter alia, no such systems exist in modern West Germanic, and therefore cannot be reconstructed for earlier periods. In the present paper it is shown that in fact such systems are attested in geographically peripheral West Germanic dialects (Dutch, South German), and argued that this supports the conservative interpretation of the orthoepic descriptions of these pairs, which consistently show qualitative identity until the 1680s. RÉSUMÉ Selon l'opinion reçue dans l'érudition parmi les historiens de la langue anglaise la distinction qualité/longueur dans les paires A, i:/, /u, u:/ a des origines lointaines, remontant au moins à l'anglais moyen, peut-être même au viel anglais ou plus loin encore (germain occ. * /i, e:/, * /u, o:/ comme sources principales). Dans un article récent (Lass 1989), j'avais émis l'hypothèse que ces paires ne restaient distinctes qu'au niveau de la longueur (/i, i:/, etc.) et cela jusqu'à la fin du XVIIe siècle. Une telle opinion fut contestée par Minkova & Stockwell (1990) qui, en autres chose, se basèrent sur l'argument de tels systèmes n'existent pas dans les langues ouest-germaniques modernes et que, par conséquent, on ne pouvait pas reconstruire un tel système pour des périodes plus anciennes. Dans le présent article il est démontré qu'en effet de tels systèmes sont attestés dans des dialectes ouest-germains qui se trouvent géogra-phiquement à la périphérie (le hollandais, l'allemand méridional). Selon l'argument présenté ici, cette évidence mène à une interpretation conservatrice des descriptions orthoépiques de ces paires qui démontrent, d'une façon consistante, une telle identité qualitative jusqu'aux années 1680. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Der traditionellen, von Historikern der englischen Sprache rezipierten Auf-fassung zufolge ist die Unterscheidung Qualität/Länge der Paare /I, i:/, /u, u:/ von hohem Alter, wenigstens bis zum Mittelenglischen zurückgehend, wenn nicht gar zum Altenglischen oder soger früher (WGerm. * /i, e:/, * /u, o:/ als deren Hauptquellen). In einem jüngeren Aufsatz (Lass 1989) vertrat ich die Auffassung, daß diese Paare (/i, i:/, usw.) bis weit ins 17. Jahrhundert hinein bestanden hätten. Diese Auffassung ist von Minkova & Stockwell (1990) zu-riickgewiesen worden, und zwar u.a. mit dem Hinweis darauf, daB solche Systeme in modernen westgermanischen Sprachen nicht bestünden und daher auch nicht fur frühere Zeiträume rekonstruiert werden könnten. Im vorlie-genden Artikel wird nachgewiesen, daB in der Tat solche Systeme in geogra-phisch am Rande befindlichen westgermanischen Dialekten (Niederländisch, Siiddeutsch) vorhanden sind. Dies sollte die vom Autor vertretene konservative Interpretation der orthoepischen Beschreibungen dieser Phonem-Paare unter-stiitzen, die bis in die 80er Jahre des 17. Jahrhunderts hinein in konsistenter Weise qualitative Identitaten aufgewiesen haben.

From ‘quickly’ to ‘fairly’: on the history ofrather

2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
MATTI RISSANEN
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Middle English ◽  
Old English ◽  
Type I ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Semantic Development ◽  
Syntactic Development

In this article I describe the semantic and syntactic development of the moderatorratherfrom Old to Present-day English using a variationist approach.Ratheroriginates in an Old English comparative adverb indicating speed, and hence time, but the loss of the indication of speed and movement can already be traced in the Old English period. In Middle English the ‘preferential’ senses ofrather(e.g. the type ‘I would rather do X than Y’) become more common than the temporal senses. This contrastive meaning constitutes the unmarked use ofratherin Early Modern English, but it gradually weakens in the course of the Modern English period. The moderator use becomes popular in the second half of the eighteenth century. The semantic development outlined above goes hand in hand with a syntactic development from an original adjunct into a subjunct and conjunct, and finally into a modifier of adjectives and adverbs.

Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: a historical survey

2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Bergh ◽  
Aimo Seppänen
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Middle English ◽  
General Trend ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Historical Survey ◽  
Spoken English ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Preposition Stranding ◽  
Grammatical Change

In the course of their history, English wh-relatives are known to have undergone a syntactic change in their prepositional usage: having originally occurred only with pied-piped prepositions, they came to admit preposition stranding as an alternative pattern. The present article presents an overview of this process, showing a modest beginning of stranding in Late Middle English, an increase in Early Modern English, and then a clear decrease in the written language of today, against a more liberal use in spoken English, standard as well as nonstandard. The drop in the incidence of stranding is thus not an expression of a genuine grammatical change but due to notions of correctness derived from the grammar of Latin and affecting written usage. The general trend of the development outlined is mirrored by relative that, with which the pied piping attested in Middle English completely disappeared from the language.

Why worser is better: The double comparative in 16th- to 17th-century English

2001 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Schlüter
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Present Article ◽  
17Th Century ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Corpus Studies ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Corpus Data ◽  
Diachronic Development

In Early Modern English, double comparatives were often encountered in both spoken and written language. The present article investigates the redundantly marked comparative worser in relation to its irregular, but etymologically justified, counterpart worse. My aim is to examine the diachronic development of the form as well as its distribution in the written language of the 16th and 17th centuries. Two detailed corpus studies are used to reveal the set of parameters underlying the variation between worse and worser, which include system congruity, semantics, and standardization effects. However, the focus here is on the tendency to maintain an alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables, known as the Principle of Rhythmic Alternation. This prosodic principle (which has been argued to be particularly influential in English) turns out to be responsible for most of the results obtained in the analysis of the corpus data.

Investigating the past of the futurate present

2021 ◽  
pp. 210-238
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Cowper ◽  
Daniel Currie Hall ◽  
Bronwyn M. Bjorkman ◽  
Rebecca Tollan ◽  
Neil Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Middle English ◽  
Old English ◽  
Distinct Class ◽  
The Past ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Present Tense ◽  
Primary Form

Using a corpus of 1118 future-referring clauses from each of five versions of the Christian Gospels, this paper explores the effect that the development of English modals as a distinct class had on the range of meanings expressed by the simple present tense. It is shown that in Old English, the simple present tense was the primary form used to express future meanings, while by Early Modern English modals were obligatory in such clauses. In late Middle English, modals were very frequently used, but are shown not to be obligatory. The change is attributed to the advent, in the late 1500s, of a contrastive interpretable feature modality, spelled out by the modals. Thereafter, a clause lacking this contrastive feature could not be interpreted as future-referring except in planned or scheduled contexts. The featural implications of the present-day decline of the true modals are then briefly considered.

The English Double Modal Conspiracy

Diachronica ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Nagle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Southern United States ◽  
Generative Syntax ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Xviie Siecle

SUMMARY The English double-modal combinations such as might could, used by over 20,000,000 speakers in the southern United States and by much smaller populations in Scotland and Northern Ireland, are nonetheless unknown to speakers of standard and colloquial varieties of other types of English. In syntactic theory, they are somewhat problematic for versions of generative syntax that hold that in English the modal auxiliary is the head of its clause, ruling out modal combinations. This article assumes, based on previous investigations (Nagle 1993, Montgomery & Nagle 1994), that today's double modals are innovations. It then argues that their rise in Early Modern English reflects a conspiracy of syntactic and semantic factors. RÉSUMÉ Les combinaisons anglaises des expressions modales doubles comme might could, malgr6 le fait que'elles sont utilisées par 20 millions locuteurs au sud des Etats Unis et en Ecosse et Irlande du Nord par une population beau-coup moins grande, ne sont pas connus parmi les locuteurs d'autres variantes anglaises, standard ou colloquial. En theorie syntaxique, elles s'averent un peu problématiques pour des types de syntaxe generative qui maintiennent que la modale auxiliaire represente la 'tete' de sa clause, ainsi excluant les combinaisons modales. Le present article, se basant sur des investgations precedantes (Nagle 1993, Montgomery & Nagle 1994), suppose que les modales doubles d'aujourd'hui représentent des innovations. II constate que son apparition dans 1'anglais moderne du XVIIe siecle reflete une 'conspiration' de facteurs syn-taxiques et semantique. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Kombinationen doppelter Modalwörtern im Englischen wie might could, die von iiber 2 Millionen Sprechern in den Siidstaaten verwendet werden und auch von einer geringeren Bevolkerungszahl in Schottland und Nordirland, sind unter Sprechern anderer Varietaten, des Standards wie auch der Um-gangssprache, nicht bekannt. Fur die Syntaxtheorie, vor allem fur gewisse generative Modelle, sind solche Verwendungen dieser Art problematisch, und zwar deshalb, weil sie behaupten, daB das modale Hilfszeitwort gewisser-maßen den 'Kopf der jeweiligen Wortgruppe darstelle. Auf vorangegangene Forschungen (Nagle 1993, Montgomery & Nagle 1994) aufbauend, nimmt der vorliegende Aufsatz an, daB es sich bei diesen doppelten Modalkombinationen um Neuerungen handelt. Ihr Aufkommen im Frühneuenglischen sei eine 'Ver-schworung' syntaktischer und semantischer Faktoren.

The subjunctive in main clauses

2020 ◽  
pp. 21-57
Author(s):  
Lilo Moessner
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Middle English ◽  
Old English ◽  
Weak Type ◽  
The Other ◽  
Strong Type ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Continuous Frequency ◽  
Root Modality

This chapter deals with the frequency development of the subjunctive and its competitors as well as with their distribution across text categories in main clauses in the periods Old English (OE), Middle English (ME), and Early Modern English (EModE). The results of the analysis of these parameters are interpreted as a change from a preferred weak type of root modality in OE to a strong type in ME, which is reversed in EModE. A more or less continuous frequency decrease of subjunctives from OE until late ME contrasts with a frequency rise of modal contructions and imperatives. Yet the frequency rise of imperatives is reversed in ME. The subjunctive is the preferred realisation of the verbal syntagms in text category STA (legislative texts) in all periods. The other text categories with big shares of relevant verbal syntagms have changing preferences of their realisations.

The subjunctive in adverbial clauses

2020 ◽  
pp. 153-201
Author(s):  
Lilo Moessner
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Middle English ◽  
Old English ◽  
Corpus Analysis ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Adverbial Clauses ◽  
Adverbial Clause ◽  
Matrix Verb

This chapter explores the frequency development of the subjunctive and its competitors, namely indicatives and modal constructions, in the adverbial clauses of a corpus covering the periods Old English (OE), Middle English (ME), and Early Modern English (EModE). It also describes the influence of the parameters text category, adverbial clause type, and matrix verb on the realisation of the verbal syntagm of adverbial clauses. The corpus analysis shows that subjunctive frequency is surpassed by indicative frequency already in OE, whereas it keeps its ground against modal constructions until EModE. The biggest shares of subjunctives are found in the text categories STA (legislative texts) and IS (secular instruction texts), in clauses of condition and concession, and in matrix clauses with verbal syntagms realised by subjunctives and imperatives.

The subjunctive in adjectival relative clauses

2020 ◽  
pp. 58-94
Author(s):  
Lilo Moessner
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Middle English ◽  
Old English ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
16Th Century ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Historical Periods ◽  
Root Modality

This chapter deals with the frequency development of the subjunctive and its competitors, namely indicatives and modal constructions, in adjectival relative clauses in the historical periods Old English (OE), Middle English (ME), and Early Modern English (EModE). Additionally, it discusses the linguistic and extralinguistic parameters influencing their distribution across these periods. The analysis of a corpus comprising nearly 3,000 relative clauses reveals that the subjunctive in adjectival relative clauses died out in the 16th century, that it was best preserved in text category STA containing legislative texts, and that it was favoured in combination with wh-relative markers and in constructions characterized by modal harmony, i.e. in combination with matrix clauses with verbal syntagms expressing root modality.

scholarly journals The Development of long in Early Modern English: Impersonal Verbs of Desire in Focus

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-132
Author(s):  
Noelia Chao-Castro
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Middle English ◽  
Construction Grammar ◽  
Grammatical Subject ◽  
Early Modern English

The class of English verbs of Desire in Present-Day English comprises verbs such as long or thirst, several of which are attested in earlier English in impersonal constructions characterised by the lack of a grammatical subject. In English, the impersonal construction decreased in frequency between 1400 and 1500, and effectively went out of use during the sixteenth century. Previous research has suggested that there is a need for a corpus-based study of not just Middle English, but also Early Modern English, in order to explore the different path(s) of development followed by individual impersonal verbs. The present article, therefore, investigates the development of the impersonal verb long (< OE langian) with the following objectives: a) to determine when long ceases to occur in impersonal constructions; b) to provide a diachronic overview of the personal syntactic patterns that came to replace impersonal constructions in Early Modern English; and c) to identify, within the framework of Construction Grammar, factors that may account for the development of long as a prepositional verb.

The discourse markerwellin the history of English

1997 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas H. Jucker
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Middle English ◽  
Old English ◽  
Partial Answer ◽  
Reported Speech ◽  
Discourse Marker ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
History Of ◽  
Face Threat ◽  
Interpersonal Level

The discourse markerwellhas four distinct uses in Modern English: as a frame it introduces a new topic or prefaces direct reported speech; as a qualifier it prefaces a reply which is only a partial answer to a question; as a face-threat mitigator it prefaces a disagreement; and as a pause filler it bridges interactional silence.In Old Englishwellwas used on an interpersonal level as an emphatic attention-getting device (similar to Old Englishhwæt‘listen’, ‘behold’, or ‘what’). In Middle English,wellalways functioned as a frame on a textual level. In Early Modern English, and particularly in the plays by Shakespeare, the uses ofwelldiversified considerably and adopted interpersonal uses again.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document