The subjunctive in adjectival relative clauses

Author(s):  
Lilo Moessner

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.

Author(s):  
Lilo Moessner

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.


Author(s):  
Lilo Moessner

This chapter sets the present book off against previous studies about the English subjunctive in the historical periods Old English (OE), Middle English (ME), and Early Modern English (EModE). The aim of the book is described as the first comprehensive and consistent description of the history of the present English subjunctive. The key term subjunctive is defined as a realisation of the grammatical category mood and an expression of the semantic/pragmatic category root modality. The corpus used in the book is part of The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, comprising nearly half a million words in 91 files. The research method adopted is a combination of close reading and computational analysis.


2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
MATTI RISSANEN

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.


Author(s):  
Elizabeth Cowper ◽  
Daniel Currie Hall ◽  
Bronwyn M. Bjorkman ◽  
Rebecca Tollan ◽  
Neil Banerjee

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.


Diachronica ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Lass

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.


Author(s):  
Lilo Moessner

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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerzy Nykiel

I first show that the reduced form of the definite article th’ is present throughout Middle English and Early Modern English. Then I highlight the differences in the pragmatic functions of the reduced form and full form of the article in three prose texts taken from the late 15th century and the 16th century. Given the differences, late Middle English and the first century of Early Modern English are closer to having two definite articles rather than one. The development of the reduced form th’ is part of the DP cycle in that th’ emerges as the function of the weakens. Finally, I tentatively argue that th’ is reanalyzed as the head of DP around 1500, after being initially base-generated in nP, at which point th’ is closer to a nominal marker than to a definite article.*


Author(s):  
Lilo Moessner

This chapter explores the frequency development of the subjunctive and its competitors, namely indicatives and modal constructions, in noun clauses in a corpus covering the historical periods Old English (OE), Middle English (ME), and Early Modern English (EModE). Furthermore, it discusses the influence of the parameters date of composition, text category, prose vs poetry, noun clause function, matrix verb, and noun clause type on their distribution in the individual periods. The corpus analysis of about 2.3 thousand noun clauses attests a more or less steady frequency decrease of the subjunctive from the OE period onwards. Text category STA with legislative texts, subjunctive verbal syntagms in the matrix clause, and the clause type that-clause are identified as the factors which contributed most to the preservation of the subjunctive.


Author(s):  
Lilo Moessner

This chapter analyses subjunctive use in the construction types main clause, relative clause, noun clause, and adverbial clause in three synchronic cuts through the periods Old English (OE), Middle English (ME), and Early Modern English (EModE). They are followed by a condensed history of the English subjunctive from the earliest documents to the beginning of the 18th century. The first three sections trace the frequency development of the subjunctive and its competitors in the relevant period and establish the linguistic and extralinguistic parameters which influence their distribution. The last section additionally gives an overview of the role that the simplification of the verbal syntagm, the individual construction types, the different text categories, and the expression of modality played in subjunctive use across the historical periods.


1997 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas H. Jucker

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