Descriptive Adequacy of Early Modern English Grammars 9783110906042, 9783110181937

Citation preview

Descriptive Adequacy of Early Modern English Grammars

W G DE

Topics in English Linguistics 47

Editors

Bernd Kortmann Elizabeth Closs Traugott

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Descriptive Adequacy of Early Modern English Grammars

by

Ute Dons

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Dons, Ute, 1971Descriptive adequacy of early modern English grammars / by Ute Dons. p. cm. — (Topics in English linguistics ; 47) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-018193-2 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. English language — Early modern, 1500 — 1700 — Grammar. 2. English language — Early modern, 1500 — 1700 — Grammar — Historiography. I. Title. II. Series. PE821.D66 2004 428.2Ό9Ό3—dc22 2004017322

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

ISBN 3-11-018193-2 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche

Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at .

© Copyright 2004 by Walter de Gruyter G m b H & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgements

This book was submitted as doctoral dissertation to the Philosophical Faculty of the Technical University of Aachen. It took quite some time from the moment of handing it in to the posting of the camera-ready copy, with a number of persons contributing in one way or another to the present study. My thanks go to my supervisor Lilo Moessner for offering me the opportunity to join her staff at the Technical University of Aachen and to carry out further research on Early Modern English grammar writing. I owe her a large debt of thanks for her interest in my work and for her unfailing support from the very beginning of the project until the completion of this manuscript. I thank Paul Georg Meyer for accepting to be the co-referee and for his advice on the theoretical background. I am grateful to Christa Μ. Schmidt, not only for numerous discussions on "my" grammarians and for commenting on several (pre-)fmal versions, but also for encouraging me when the Early Modern English grammar jungle seemed to become impenetrable. Needless to say that I alone am responsible for any remaining mistakes and shortcomings. My thanks also go to Petra Bettig for introducing me to the "art of indexing" and to Johannes Müller-Lance for helping to re-animate my fading memories of Latin once I got to the more complex constructions. I also wish to express my gratitude to the staff of the University Library of Aachen University, especially to those working in the interlibrary loan section. They managed to trace many first editions and microfiches which otherwise would not have been accessible to me. I thank Bernd Kortmann, one of the Series Editors of Topics in English Linguistics, the anonymous reviewer and Manfred Krug who helped me with constructive comments and advice on the pre-fmal version. My thanks also go to Mouton de Gruyter for putting up with more and more delays. Birgit Sievert was very helpful with all administrative matters and provided quick and efficient help when it came to formatting the book. Last but not least, my thanks go to my family: To my parents for supporting my work in every possible way, to our sons Bjarne and Marten for more than once releasing me from the good-night-ceremony to let me write "The Book" (which Bjarne offered to illustrate once he learned that there were not going to be any pictures in it), and to my husband Peter for doing

vi

Acknowledgements

most of the formatting, for keeping the household going and the kids (and myself) in good humour, and for encouraging me again and again in this work - even though he did not write a single line, this book would not exist without him. Aachen, July 2004

Ute Dons

Table of contents

Acknowledgements

V

1

Introduction

1

1.1

The cultural climate

4

1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3

The corpus of Early Modern English grammars William Bullokar: Bref Grammar for English (1586) Paul Greaves: Grammatica Anglicana (1594) Alexander Hume: Orthographie and Congruitie of the Britan Tongue (1617) Alexander Gill: Logonomia Anglica (1619/1621) Charles Butler: English Grammar (1634) Ben Jonson: The English Grammar (1640) Joshua Poole: The English Accidence (1646) John Wallis: Grammatica Linguce Anglicance (1653) Jeremiah Wharton: The English Grammar (1654) James Howell: A New English Grammar (1662) John Newton: School Pastime for Young Children: or the Rudiments of Grammar (1669) Thomas Lye: The Child's Delight (1671) Christopher Cooper: Grammatica Linguce Anglicance (1685) GuyMiege: The English Grammar (1688) Joseph Aickin: The English grammar (1693) A. Lane: A Key to the Art of Letters (1700)

6 7 8

1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.2.8 1.2.9 1.2.10 1.2.11 1.2.12 1.2.13 1.2.14 1.2.15 1.2.16 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3

Models of the English grammars William Lily and John Colet: A Short Introduction of Grammar (1549) Petrus Ramus: Grammatica (1572) John Wilkins: An Essay Towards a Real Character, And a Philosophical language (1668)

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 19 21

viii

Table of contents

2

The parts of speech

23

2.1

Parts of speech: Definition and inventory

23

2.2 2.2.1 2.2.1.1 2.2.1.2 2.2.1.3 2.2.2 2.2.2.1 2.2.2.1.1 2.2.2.1.2 2.2.2.1.3 2.2.2.1.4 2.2.2.1.5 2.2.2.1.6 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.4 2.2.3

Nouns and adjectives Definition General definition Distinction between nouns and adjectives Distinction between common and proper nouns Morphological categories Number Regular plural formation Plural formation with i-mutation Plural formation with {-en} Plural formation with voicing of fricatives Plural formation with zero Summary Case Gender Comparison of adjectives Summary

29 29 29 30 31 32 32 33 35 35 36 37 37 39 47 54 60

2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.2.1 2.3.2.2 2.3.2.3 2.3.2.4 2.3.2.5 2.3.2.6 2.3.3

Pronouns Definition and classification of the pronoun Inventory of pronouns Personal pronouns Possessive pronouns Demonstrative pronouns Relative pronouns Reflexive pronouns Interrogative pronouns Summary

61 61 64 65 70 74 76 79 79 80

2.4

Articles

81

2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.3.1

Verbs Definition Classification Description of the form inventory Morphological categories

84 84 85 87 88

Table of contents

ix

2.5.3.2 2.5.3.3 2.5.3.3.1 2.5.3.3.2 2.5.3.3.3 2.5.3.3.4 2.5.3.4 2.5.3.4.1 2.5.3.4.2 2.5.3.4.3 2.5.3.4.4 2.5.3.4.5 2.5.3.4.6 2.5.3.4.7 2.5.3.5 2.5.3.6 2.5.3.7 2.5.3.8 2.5.4

Inflectional endings The tense system The classical model and alternative models Morphological vs. syntactic formation of the tenses Formation of the preterite and the past participle Variants The moods The influence of classical models Imperative Infinitive Optative Potential Subjunctive Summary Modal auxiliaries Primary auxiliaries Defective verbs Impersonal verbs Summary

88 91 91 93 94 97 98 98 101 103 104 105 106 109 111 113 116 116 124

2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3

Participles Definition and status Morphological categories Forms of the participle

125 125 126 127

2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4

Adverbs Definition and status Semantic classes and other classifications Formation patterns Comparison of adverbs

129 129 130 132 132

2.8 2.8.1 2.8.2

Conjunctions Definition Classification

133 133 134

2.9 2.9.1 2.9.2

Prepositions Definition and status Classification

137 137 139

χ

Table of contents

2.10 2.10.1 2.10.2

Interjections Definition and status Classification

140 140 142

2.11

The parts of speech: An evaluation

142

3

The sentence

147

3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2

Word order Unmarked word order Inversion

148 149 152

3.2

The structure of the complex sentence

159

3.3 3.3.1 3.3.1.1 3.3.1.2 3.3.1.3 3.3.2 3.3.2.1 3.3.2.2 3.3.2.3 3.3.2.4

162 162 162 163 167 169 169 170 170

3.3.3 3.3.3.1 3.3.3.2 3.3.3.3

The structure of the noun phrase Possible heads in the noun phrase Adjectival heads Expanded pronominal heads Verbal nouns as heads Premodification of the head Articles and adjectives/participles Nouns in the genitive case Determiner-(adjective-)noun Restrictions on the combination of several premodifying elements Postmodification of the head Relative clauses Prepositional phrases Participle constructions

171 174 174 181 183

3.4 3.4.1 3.4.1.1 3.4.1.2 3.4.2 3.4.2.1 3.4.2.2 3.4.2.3 3.4.2.4

The structure of the verb phrase Possible realizations of the head Prepositional verbs as heads Auxiliaries as heads Possible expansions of the head Expansion by the primary auxiliary do (do-periphrasis) Expansion by the primary auxiliary have Expansion by the primary auxiliary be Expansion by a modal auxiliary

183 183 18 3 184 185 186 192 195 199

Table of contents

xi

3.4.2.5

Expansion by a combination of several auxiliaries

202

3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5

Concord Concord between Concord between Concord between Concord between Summary

210 212 214 216 217 218

3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3

Government Prepositions Verbs Conjunctions

218 218 219 222

3.7

The sentence: An evaluation

236

4

Results and outlook

241

4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5

Morphology Word class models The parts of speech The impact of plagiarism Results from the Helsinki Corpus Conclusive evaluation

241 241 242 243 244 245

4.2 4.2.1

247

4.2.2 4.2.3

Syntax Syntactic descriptions in Early Modern English grammars Results from the Helsinki Corpus Conclusive evaluation

247 249 250

4.3

Outlook

251

subject and predicate noun and adjective relative pronoun and antecedent apposition and antecedent

Notes

253

Bibliography

259

Name index

298

Subject index

301

Chapter 1 Introduction

This book deals with the development of a grammar-writing tradition during the Early Modern English period. It will evaluate the grammars on English published in this period with respect to their descriptive adequacy. With Chomsky (1965: 24-27), descriptively adequate grammars are understood to be works that describe the existing linguistic phenomena in an appropriate way and which "give a correct account of the linguistic intuition of the native speaker". Descriptive adequacy thus ranks higher than observational adequacy which merely aims at presenting the observed primary data correctly, and it is a prerequisite for the explanatory adequacy of grammar theories. The historical linguist, however, is faced with the problem of not being able to consult living native speakers to examine their competence and therefore has to rely on text corpora, which implies the neutralization of observational adequacy and descriptive adequacy. The hypothesis underlying the present study is that the level of descriptive adequacy increases in the course of the Early Modern English period, as any kind of scientific research is motivated by the natural desire to broaden one's horizon and to perfect one's knowledge. This motivation can also be observed in Early Modern English times: "Non ignoro alios ante me hoc aliquando aggressos esse, & aliquid etiam non contemnendum prasstitisse ... At nemo eorum, quantum ego existimo, ilia insistit via qu£e huic negotio maxime est accommodata ... Et propterea nova prorsus methodo incendum esse mihi visum est, quam non tam usitata Latins linguas, quam peculiaris linguae nostrze ratio suadet" (Wallis, Praefatio Ad Lectorem) ["I am well aware that others before me have made the attempt at one time or another, and have produced worth-while contributions ... None of them however, in my opinion, used the method which is best suited to the task ... For this reason, I decided to employ a completely new method, which has its basis not, as is customary, in the structure of the Latin language but in the characteristic structure of our own", trans. Kemp 1972: 109-111],

2

Introduction

In order to come to a comprehensive evaluation, the statements found in the Early Modern English grammars will be systematized and compared to corresponding remarks in modern descriptions of Early Modern English (i.e. descriptions dating from 1900 onwards). The focus is on the parts of speech (Chapter 2) and the description of the sentence (Chapter 3). Whenever the contemporary descriptions differ from modern accounts of Early Modern English, the statements are checked against a text corpus which serves as the best possible approximation to a historical native speaker. To this end, we chose the Early Modern English part of The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Diachronic and Dialectal (= Helsinki Corpus). The diachronic Helsinki Corpus comprises texts of the Old, Middle, and Early Modern English periods. Its 1993 version contains about 1.5 million words (Old English: 413,250 words, Middle English 608,570 words, Early Modern English 551,000 words). Additionally, there are dialectal supplements of Early American English (in progress) and of Middle Scots (available since 1995). The periods are divided into sub-periods, with Early Modern English falling into three sub-periods (1500-1570, 1570-1640, 1640-1710). Within the sub-periods, the texts are arranged according to text types, e.g. handbook, Bible, sermon, letter (private/official), (auto-) biography, travelogue, diary or fiction. The compilers of the corpus paid special attention to extra-linguistic criteria and therefore did not only code the texts with respect to their (assumed) date and their position within the continuum of spoken versus written language, but, wherever possible, added details about the author and the addressee (age, sex, social position). A more detailed description of the Helsinki Corpus can be found in the manual by Kytö ([1991] 1996). When this study was carried out, the tagging and parsing work at the University of Pennsylvania was still under way and there was no tagged version of the corpus available. The issues investigated here are therefore based on word forms. Spelling variants were retrieved with the help of the OED and the WordCruncher. The division of the Helsinki Corpus into sub-periods turned out to be helpful because they allowed us to correlate the data with the statements made by the different generations of Early Modern English grammarians. Further parameters such as text type, author etc. were disregarded as these aspects are generally neglected by the Early Modern English grammarians, who are mainly concerned with standard language1 and only occasionally insert some unsystematic comments on register or dialect. For this reason, we checked the statements of the contemporary grammarians only against the Helsinki Corpus and did not take into consideration other corpora that

Introduction

3

reflect the spoken language more closely, such as the Helsinki Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC). The present book combines the analysis of Early Modern English with the study of contemporary grammars. As far as the first aspect is concerned, a number of previous studies are available, some of them dealing with Early Modern English in general (e.g. Barber [1976] 1997), others focussing on specific syntactic or morphological phenomena (e.g. Ryden 1966; Ellegärd 1953; Elmer 1981; Finkenstaedt 1963; Graband 1965). The more theoretical works by Traugott (1972), Denison (1993), Perez-Guerra (1999) or Fischer et al. (2000) have also been taken into consideration. Apart from these, we profited from recent corpus-linguistic studies carried out on the Helsinki Corpus, as for instance the numerous publications by Rissanen, Kytö, Nevalainen, Raumolin-Brunberg, and other members of the Helsinki-School. Yet, while the studies mentioned above mostly concentrate on describing the linguistic changes within Early Modern English, the present study focuses on Early Modern English grammars and their descriptions; the grammar of Early Modern English is therefore only indirectly dealt with. Compared to the large number of studies of Early Modern English, the number of titles dealing with contemporary grammars is relatively small. One of the pioneers was Funke (1938, 1940, 1941), whose studies were followed by the publications of Watanabe (1955, 1958), Michael (1970), and Vorlat (1964, 1975) in the second half of the twentieth century. They all concentrate on describing the systems found in Early Modern English grammars without correlating their findings to actual language use. Traces of such a correlation can be found in the older works by Horn (1911) and Müller (1916); yet, both authors deal with one word class only. A more recent study that compares the grammatical statements made by contemporary authors to their own language use is Moessner (2000a). The present book goes one step further in that it is the first work to cover both morphology and syntax as presented in Early Modern English grammars. Furthermore, the procedure of checking the grammatical statements of both contemporary grammarians and modern scholars against an electronic text corpus contributes towards a better understanding of the Early Modern English language. On the one hand, this procedure allows us to draw conclusions about the descriptive adequacy of Early Modern English grammars and possible developments in this field. On the other hand, it offers the possibility of checking our knowledge about Early Modern

4

Introduction

English against a large authentic corpus and correcting our ideas where necessary. In the following sections of Chapter 1, the cultural circumstances that favoured the development of an English grammar tradition will be presented. This overview is followed by a short introduction of the corpus of Early Modern English grammars and their authors. Chapter 1 ends with the description of some well-known contemporary Latin grammars that served as a model for the pioneers of English grammar writing. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the grammarians' statements concerning the parts of speech and morphology and compares them to the findings of modern linguists. In Chapter 3, the statements on syntax are systematized and compared to the views held today. Chapter 4 is dedicated to a comprehensive evaluation of the descriptive adequacy of Early Modern English grammars.

1.1

The cultural climate

The first grammars of the English language date from the sixteenth century. Before that time, the term "grammar" was used to refer to grammars of Latin only. But even after several grammars of the vernacular had been published, the idea of writing a grammar of the mother tongue was still perceived as unusual: "Now, touching this new English Grammar, let not the Reader mistake, as if it were an English Grammar to learn another Language, as Lillie is for Latin" (Howell 1662: To the Reader). For centuries, English had been in the shadow of French and Latin because of its alleged lack of elegance and expressiveness. The main reason for the beginning of an English grammar tradition in the sixteenth century was the change in the cultural climate due to the movements of Renaissance, Reformation, and Humanism. The Renaissance movement with its increasing interest in the classical cultures raised the desire among the English people to similarly refine and enlarge the means of expression of their own language. It was felt that only with adequate means of expression at hand the English culture would be able to attain comparable cultural achievements. These patriotic reasons increased the scholarly interest in the English language, which so far had been neglected in favour of Latin. At the time, English possessed neither a standardized grammar nor a binding spelling system. Pronunciation also varied considerably in the sixteenth century, while the lexicon was relatively limited as Latin, the language of the scholars and the sciences, was

The cultural climate

5

traditionally preferred for complex subject matters. In spite of these shortcomings, most scholars were aware of the potential of the English language and tried to increase the acceptance of their mother tongue. Their efforts to lay down rules for the English language, which might also have been motivated by comparable reforms in contemporary France (Kittredge 1903: 1), resulted in the publication of numerous grammars, dictionaries, and essays about orthography and spelling. The Reformation movement favoured the development of an English grammar tradition in that it broke with the tradition that all clerical matters should exclusively be dealt with in Latin. The leaders of the Reformation realized the need for a refined mother tongue in order to make the insights of true beliefs accessible to the people. The esteem for the English language increased in particular when the Bible was translated into English: Until the Early Modern English period, there was no officially accepted English translation of the Bible as conservative circles feared the danger of heretic interpretations. Large parts of society therefore had to rely on the interpretations of priests instead of reading the Scriptures themselves. Thanks to Wycliffe's translation of the Bible into English, the mother tongue was given more prestige as it proved to be appropriate for the sublime content. Moreover, the translation underlined that complex subject matters could just as well be expressed in the vernacular (Barber 1997: 47). Humanism finally raised the prestige of English at school. According to the Humanist principle "Teach the unknown by the known", pupils should first get acquainted with the basic grammatical categories by analyzing English before they started to learn Latin. This new approach presupposed the existence of English grammars. The prestige of the English language also increased with the invention of the printing press. From this moment onwards, a large majority of the English people could afford and read books, which previously had been a privilege reserved to the learned and the rich. As a large part of society (for instance the rising merchant middle class) was able to read, but did not speak Latin, the number of topics dealt with in English rapidly increased. The introduction of the printing press also underlined the need for a standardized orthography. Patriotism was another factor in the emancipation of English from Latin: With their national pride growing, the citizens felt the need for an expressive mother tongue. In this context, people often stressed the advantages English had over Latin: "I love Rome, but London better, I favor Italie, but England more, I honor the Latin, but I worship the English"

6

Introduction

(Mulcaster [1582] 1970: 254). People favoured English because of its less complicated grammar, its richer lexicon, its linguistic economy resulting from its monosyllabic character, and its euphonious pronunciation. Besides, they considered English not to be inferior to Latin in origin and age as it looked back on a similarly long and glorious past (Rusch 1972: 212214). Due to the developments outlined above,2 the influence of Latin was decreasing in the course of the Early Modern English period, while the prestige of the English language kept growing. English was introduced for the first time as a separate school subject in the second half of the seventeenth century and was thus no longer degraded to a mere vehicle for learning Latin. The fact that we find grammars about English written in Latin (the last one by Cooper in 1685) up to the end of the Early Modern English period, can be explained by the authors' desire to be read in England as well as abroad. However, from the 1630s onwards, the number of grammars written in the mother tongue clearly outnumbers those written in Latin. English also gains more importance as a discourse language in other scientific domains. Wallis, for instance, wrote his theological essays in English - in contrast to his English grammar which is written in Latin.

1.2

The corpus of Early Modern English grammars

This study is based on sixteen grammars of the English language written in the course of the Early Modern English period. With Graband (1965), Dobson ([1957] 1968), Görlach (1982, 1991), and Barber (1997), the term "Early Modern English" will be used to refer to the years 1500 to 1700. More exactly, we are interested in a time span of roughly 120 years starting with the publication of the first English grammar by Bullokar in 1586 and ending with the work by Lane printed in 1700. The grammars were selected on the basis of R.C. Alston's A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention of Printing to the Year 1800 (1974,1) and Ian Michael's English grammatical categories (1970). Whenever available, the facsimile editions by the Menston Scholar Press3 were used. Grammars of English written in a language other than English or Latin (e.g. George Mason's Grammaire Angloise, 1622) were disregarded as were works that turned out to be grammars of Latin (e.g. John Brinsley's The Posing of the Parts, 1612, or John Hewes' A Perfect Survey of the English Tongue, Taken According to the Use and Analogie of the Latine, 1624). Finally,

The corpus of Early Modern English grammars

7

universal grammars, such as Wilkins' Essay Towards Real Character, and a Philosophical Language (1668), in which the description of English only plays a minor role, were not considered either. In the following the grammars relevant to this study and their authors will briefly be characterized.4

1.2.1

William Bullokar: Bref Grammar for English (1586)

William Bullokar (71520—1590)5 worked as a teacher in London around the year 1550. The phonetic transcriptions used in his works suggest that he came from East Anglia. Later in his life, he served as a soldier abroad before he studied agriculture and law. Bullokar was interested in languages and, apart from English and Latin, he also spoke Greek, Italian, and French. Around 1573 Bullokar returned to London to work as a teacher. In the course of the following years, he wrote several text books, for example the Booke at Large for the Amendment of Orthography for English Speech (1580), which contained a new orthographic system that should eliminate ambiguous cases of the traditional English orthography by introducing several new letters and diacritic signs. Other works are William Bullokarz pamphlet for grammar (1586)6 and his Bref Grammar (1586). His ambitious project to reform the English language also included a dictionary, which was never finished. Apart from his linguistic works, Bullokar published translations of iEsop's fables and Cato's maxims (1585). Bullokar's work marks the beginning of the English grammar tradition. Bullokar was convinced that learning Latin would pose fewer problems if the pupils already possessed a good knowledge of their mother tongue. Adults might also benefit from the grammatical knowledge of their mother tongue when learning foreign languages (p.l). The Bref Grammar is written in Bullokar's own orthographic system. This system is based on pronunciation and uses a variety of symbols. The book is difficult to read, a fact which induced Jespersen (1907: 19) to call Bullokar a "muddle-headed spelling reformer ... whose system is nothing but the traditional spelling with a host of mystical and inconsistently employed dots and accents over and under the letters." As phonology and orthography are irrelevant to this study, quotes from Bullokar's grammar are given in traditional orthography. Even though Bullokar's grammar is characterized by a number of unclear or inaccurate statements (which is all the more astonishing as it took Bullokar ten years to write the book), it has to be valued as a pioneering work.

8

1.2.2

Introduction

Paul Greaves: Grammatica Anglicana (1594)

The question about the authorship of this grammar was discussed controversially for a long time, as the copy at the British Museum is signed with the initials "P. Gr." only. Some scholars, among them Otto Funke, considered Paul Gr(e)aves to be the author, while others attributed the work to Peter Greenwood (see introduction to Funke 1938a; Scheurweghs and Vorlat 1959: 135). The second surviving copy at Cambridge University Library, however, contains the full name of its author so that all doubts could be cleared. Little is known about Greaves' life and origin. The initial dedication in rhymed verses reveals that he was a soldier and writer. Further biographical details are found in entries of the archives of Cambridge University. Greaves started his studies at Christ's College in 1588 and graduated as a bachelor in 1591/92. In 1595, he finished his degree of Master of Arts and became a staff member of his college. In 1598, he seems to have violated the university rules and was excluded from the staff to preserve the good reputation of the college (Enkvist 1958: 278). All we know about his later life is that he lectured at St. Andrews University on Monday mornings in the years from 1614 to 1616. With his grammar Greaves aims at raising English to the level of other established foreign languages by providing both his countrymen and foreigners with a solid background knowledge of the English language (A3r). Moreover, Greaves hopes to facilitate the access to the Latin language. The Grammatica Anglicana consists of an Etymologia, which deals with phonology, syllables and morphology, and a syntax part. The appendix contains a list of Chaucer's vocabulary. According to Greaves' editor Otto Funke (1938a: LI), this grammar gives a better overview of the English language than the work of his precursor Bullokar as it also contains detailed lists of irregular forms of nouns and verbs.

1.2.3

Alexander Hume: Orthographie and Congruitie of the Britan Tongue (1617)

Alexander Hume, whose dates of birth and death are unknown, was the first important Scottish grammarian. There is strong evidence that he studied in Dunbar and St. Andrews where he was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1574. Hume then taught in England (Oxford and Bath) for

The corpus of Early Modern English grammars

9

sixteen years and received the degree of Master of Arts in 1584. He returned to Edinburgh in 1596, where he became the headmaster of the local high school. Ten years later, Hume was promoted to the position of headmaster at the Grammar School of Prestonpans. In 1615, he was appointed headmaster of the Grammar School of Dunbar, which underlines his good reputation as a pedagogue. Hume probably wrote his English grammar on the occasion of James' I. visit to Scotland in 1617. It was first published as late as the nineteenth century (1865). Hume was also known for his polemic essays on religious topics and for his works on Latin grammar (e.g. Schola Grammatica and Grammatica Nova, 1612), which are to be valued more highly than his Orthographie and Congruitie. His grammar of the English language is written in Scottish English. The small book contains two parts, one on orthography and one on the parts of speech. As a result of his long stay in England, Hume frequently confuses southern and northern forms (Barber 1997: 19). A number of shortcomings prevented the grammar from becoming the standard work at Scottish universities and schools that Hume had hoped it would (p.2). In his grammar, Hume is mainly concerned with the discussion of unclear cases in orthography while grammatical issues are dealt with only marginally.

1.2.4

Alexander Gill: Logonomia Anglica (1619/1621)

Alexander Gill came from Lincolnshire and probably lived from 1567 to 1635.7 He went to Corpus Christi College at Oxford and enrolled at Oxford University in 1586. Four years later he finished his studies with the degree of Master of Arts. Gill probably worked as a teacher in Norwich, before he succeeded Richard Mulcaster as High Master of St. Paul's in 1609, and he held this office for the next 27 years. Among his pupils was also John Milton. Gill had not only a good reputation as a pedagogue, but was also wellknown as a theologian and Latinist. Apart from his grammar (two editions in 1619 and 1621), he wrote two theological works, A Treatise concerning the Trinity of Persons in Unity of the Deitie (1601) and Sacred Philosophie of the Holy Scripture (1635). Furthermore, Gill was one of the scholars who worked on the translation of the Authorized Version of the King James Bible (Danielsson and Gabrielson 1972, 2: 16), which underlines his reputation as an excellent Latinist.

10

Introduction

Gill preferred to write his English grammar in Latin. He explicitly focused on describing the educated register (see Prcefatio ad Lectorem and note 1), as he opposed the developments in the colloquial language of the non-literary classes (Jiriczek 1902: 130). Gill decidedly opted against mixing different languages and the exaggerated use of foreign words,8 but pleaded for moderately enriching the lexicon (Jiriczek 1902: 134-135). With his grammar Gill pursued patriotic motives and intended to help both native speakers and foreigners to gain a better knowledge of English. Gill (like Bullokar) was in favour of a spelling reform and therefore chose to write the English examples given in his grammar in his own notational system of 40 letters. Yet, the fact that there was a second edition after just two years has often been attributed to the inconvenient and costly spelling of the first edition (Jiriczek 1902: 131). In this study, quotes are given in traditional orthography.9 The Logonomia Anglica is clearly more comprehensive and systematic than the works by earlier grammarians and also includes relatively large sections on syntax and prosody. Gill is the first author to mention language history in his Prcefatio ad Lectorem. Moreover, the book contains numerous digressions, which prove Gill's extensive scholarly knowledge. The large number of quotes and side remarks makes the book interesting for historians; it has been considered a "very respectable monument of seventeenth-century English scholarship" (Kittredge 1903: 5).

1.2.5

Charles Butler: English Grammar (1634)10

Charles Butler ^Buckinghamshire, 71560) held the office of a bible-clerk at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he registered in 1579. After his graduation as a Bachelor in the academic year 1583/84 he finished his studies in 1587 with the degree of Master of Arts. In the years from 1593 to 1600, he worked as a teacher at the Free School of Basingstoke, Hampshire. In 1594 he became curate in the neighbouring village of LaurenceWotton and held this office until his death in March 1647. Butler wrote several books, among them a study about bees (1609), a treatise about clerical obstacles against matrimony (1625) and a musicological work (1636). He dedicated his grammar to Prince Charles hoping that it would thus be used for the education of the then 4-year-old boy. Like Bullokar and Gill, Butler aimed at a reform of the English spelling system and set up a complicated notation system for his grammar, which,

The corpus of Early Modern English grammars

11

however, was not adopted for the quotes from his work. Butler was convinced that he could thus improve the structure of the English spelling system and make his mother tongue equal to other languages. Butler believed in the advantages of the English language and wanted to contribute to its spread. His grammar focuses on pronunciation, orthography, and morphology, while syntax is neglected.

1.2.6

Ben Jonson: The English Grammar (1640)

Ben Jonson was born around 1573 and died in 1637. In contrast to his predecessors, Jonson graduated relatively late (Master of Arts in Scotland in 1619 only). Instead he worked as a bricklayer after briefly attending St. John's College in Cambridge before he joined the English army and was sent to Flanders. Towards the end of the sixteenth century he started his career as an actor and playwright and became famous for plays like Vol· pone, Every Man in his Humour and others, which put him in the favour of the court. Yet after the reign of James I, Jonson lost his reputation at the court under King Charles and finally worked as a chronicler of the City of London. It is generally assumed that Jonson's grammar was finished by 1620 and was subsequently destroyed by a fire in Jonson's library in 1623 (Funke 1940: 117).11 Jonson set back to work and collected material for a comprehensive work. It seems to have been finished in 1632, even though some scholars claim that Jonson could not finish his new grammar before his death (Graband 1965: 25). The extant grammar was published three years after Jonson's death (see introduction to the [1972] facsimile edition) and is apparently only a fragment of the original text: "His merits as a student of grammar, though he was frankly an amateur, are not to be judged by the scant, often naive, notes which survived the destruction of his library by fire. His original researches were certainly lost, and the brief sketch which survives is of little moment, save as an indicator of the value which Jonson himself attached to the subject" (Partridge 1953: xii).

The (1640) version of the grammar was revised by an unknown person in the (1692) folio in order to adapt it to the language use of the end of the seventeenth century. These changes were undone in the critical edition by

12

Introduction

C. Η. Herford and Percy and Evelyn Simpson, whose corrections are documented in Herford and Simpson ([1924] 1954-1963: 2, 424-428). More than fifty years after the first English grammar by Bullokar (1586), Jonson was the first author to write a grammar in the vernacular and in the traditional orthography, so that it could easily be consulted by the average reader. Jonson addressed both children and adults, native speakers and merchants from abroad. Apart from phonology and morphology, the grammar also includes a syntax part, which in secondary literature is often considered as the beginning of the study of English syntax (Partridge 1976: vii). The descriptive model presented in Jonson's grammar is in some respects inconsistent. The grammatical rules are illustrated by literary examples, a novelty in English grammar writing. Apart from prose texts dating from the sixteenth century, Jonson also quoted from the works of Gower, Chaucer, and Lydgate, so that his grammar occasionally describes the language spoken in the late Middle English period.

1.2.7

Joshua Poole: The English Accidence (1646)

About the life of Joshua Poole, who presumably died before 1657, we only know that he passed his Master of Arts degree at Cambridge and later worked as a teacher at a private school in Middlesex. Poole's grammar was written especially for future pupils of Latin. It should introduce them to the basic grammatical concepts before they started to learn Latin, as can be seen from the subtitle A Short, Plaine, and Easie way, for the more speedy attaining to the Latine tongue, by the help of the English. The grammar was so widely read that there were further editions in 1655, 1662, and 1670. Other than suggested by the title, Poole did not confine himself to morphology but also deals with aspects of syntax. Yet, the syntax section is heavily influenced by Latin and has to be considered a Latin-English translation guide rather than an adequate description of English syntax. Generally speaking, Poole's grammar is very close to classical descriptions of the Latin language, which justifies the question whether it is a grammar of English or Latin (Enkvist 1975: 291). However, as the book is written in English and the rules are illustrated by English examples, it has been included in this study.

The corpus of Early Modern English grammars

1.2.8

13

John Wallis: Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae (1653)

John Wallis (1616-1703) was a very versatile scholar. Even before entering Emmanuel College in Cambridge at the age of sixteen, he was fluent in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. In 1640 he graduated from Emmanuel College with a Master of Arts' degree. In the same year he was ordained and started to work as a curate. Around this time he took interest in cryptology. In 1649 Wallis became professor of geometry at Oxford University and wrote several books on arithmetic and algebra. Five years later, Wallis was conferred the title of a Doctor of Divinity, and he published his theological thoughts in a number of writings. In 1658 he accepted the office of Custos Archivorum at Oxford University. After the Restoration Period, Wallis and other scholars founded the Royal Society. From then onwards, his scholarly interest focused on the language and language acquisition of the deaf. Wallis became Royal decipherer under William III and is generally considered the pioneer of scientific phonology. In view of his manifold talents and the wide spectrum of his scientific work it seems more than justified to consider Wallis one of the last universally educated people who mastered the knowledge of their time (Lehnert 1936: 8). A more detailed description of Wallis' life as well as a list of further reading can be found in Lehnert (1936). Wallis' grammar addresses native speakers and foreigners. Wallis claims that the mastery of English will simplify trade relations and that the command of English is indispensable given its important role in scientific literature, especially in theology. His Grammatica Linguce Anglicance was a very popular reference work at the time, and there were no less than five reprints in Wallis' lifetime. Apart from the traditional sections on phonology and morphology, the grammar contains an historical overview of the English language and some syntactic side remarks. Wallis is the first author to stress the fundamental differences between English and Latin, which in his opinion have not been paid sufficient attention to by his predecessors: "Ad Latinae linguas normam hanc nostram Anglicanam nimium exigentes, ... multa inutilia prascepta ... tradiderunt, quae linguae nostras sunt prorsus aliena" (Grammatica, Preface ["They all forced English too rigidly into the mould of Latin ... giving many useless rules ... which have no bearing in our language", trans. Kemp 1972: 109-111]). However, his grammar is not free from Latin influence either. Moreover, it tends to be too schematic, which at times results in the omission of irregular forms.

14

1.2.9

Introduction

Jeremiah Wharton: The English Grammar (1654)

The facts known about Wharton's life are limited to his university career at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he finished his studies with the title of Master of Arts in 1633. Wharton's grammar was written for children and adults, native speakers and foreigners. It represents a compilation of other grammatical works, which are referred to by the author in his preface: "In like manner many worthie men of our own Nation have in their several ages composed books of this nature, from all which I acknowledg [sic], more or less, I have received light and direction" {To the Reader, A7 recto). Wharton explicitly acknowledges the merits of Mulcaster, Coot, Gill, Jonson, and Butler, whose influence manifests itself to such an extent that Wharton's own achievements turn out to be quite minimal.

1.2.10 James Howell: A New English Grammar (1662) James Howell (71594-1666) attended Hereford Free School and enrolled at Jesus College, Oxford, in 1610, where he was awarded a Bachelor's degree in December 1613. After his graduation Howell worked as an administrator of a glass factory in London. This position entailed many journeys to the continent as Howell was in charge of supplying material and hiring craftsmen. Howell spent three years (1619-1622) in the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Italy and learnt the languages spoken in these countries. After his return his application for a job at the embassy was turned down so that he earned his living as a private tutor of Lord Savage's sons. In 1626, after various short-term jobs, Howell was appointed secretary of Lord Scrope, later Earl of Sunderland, and moved to York. In the following year he became a Member of Parliament for Richmond, York. In August 1642 finally, Howell swore his oath as Clerk of the Council, but did not hold this office as he was sentenced to eight years of prison for his debts. In prison, Howell, who had gained a reputation as a writer from 1640 onwards, took great interest in literature and wrote further books, among others political allegories and flyers, travelogues, dictionaries, historical studies, and grammars of English, Spanish, and French. After Howell was released from jail, he lived on the money he earned as a writer and attempted to reform the English spelling system, suggesting that all superflu-

The corpus of Early Modern English grammars

15

ous letters were deleted. In 1661, finally, Howell was appointed royal chronicler. Howell's grammar of the English language is dedicated to the Infant of Portugal, Catarina de Braganza, and is accompanied by a Spanish translation. His grammar of the Spanish language is included in the same volume. Generally, his grammar of English can be characterized as rather conservative. There are some correspondences with the grammar of Jonson, who was a personal friend of Howell.

1.2.11 John Newton: School Pastime for Young Children: or The Rudiments of Grammar (1669) John Newton (1622-1678) attended St. Edmund Hall where he received the degree of Bachelor in 1641 and the degree of Master one year later. During the Restoration period Newton was appointed curate of the king for his loyalty. In the later years of his career he became headmaster of Ross (Herefordshire) in 1661 and canon of Hereford in 1662. In the first place, Newton was a mathematician and astronomer whose scholarly work is documented in various books, e.g. Institutio Mathematica (1654), Astronomia Britannica (1657), Trigonometria Britannica (1658). Yet he was also interested in other subject matters within the canon of liberal arts: Apart from his grammar he also published The Introduction to the Art of Logic (1671), The English Academy, or a Brief Introduction to the Seven Liberal Arts (1677) or The Introduction to Geography (1678), which he wrote for the instruction of school teachers. Newton clearly opted for a reform of the educational system in order to strengthen the position of English and reduce the role of Latin. At a time when English school teachers were still teaching more or less exclusively Latin, he planned to open a school in which mathematics and English should be taught as autonomous subjects (Giles 1936: 23). Newton harshly criticized the teachers of traditional grammar schools for being "whipping-masters", who cheated the parents out of their money (To the Reader). Newton's radical views are not reflected in his grammar, which is clearly influenced by Wharton and Butler and cannot be considered an original work. It is the first grammar of English that is written in dialogue form and consists of two parts. Only Part Π is relevant to this study, since the first part consists of illustrations and a number of syllable combinations possible in the English language. All page numbers mentioned in this study refer to the second part.

16

Introduction

1.2.12 Thomas Lye: The Child's Delight (1671) Thomas Lye (1621-1684) studied in Oxford and received his Master's degree in 1646. He then worked as a curate, but was relieved from his office for a short time in 1651. After his re-appointment he was entrusted with the selection and assessment of clergymen, but lost his post after the Restoration. Lye was a well-known teacher and published not only a number of didactic works but also various sermons. As indicated by the title, Lye's grammar was clearly intended for children. Orthography and spelling are dealt with in detail with the individual letters being illustrated by little pictures (e.g. a bear for b). Lye also gives a minute account of the syllable structure and possible letter combinations of the English language. He concludes his work by briefly presenting the parts of speech and only marginally deals with syntactic aspects.

1.2.13 Christopher Cooper: Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae (1685) Christopher Cooper, whose exact date of birth is not known, came from Herefordshire. Thanks to the support of Bishop Seth of Salisbury, he was able to attend Corpus Christi College in Cambridge from 1672 to 1680 and was awarded his Bachelor's degree in 1675, his Master's degree in 1680. After his studies he became headmaster of a grammar school at Bishop Stortford, East Herefordshire, before he took over the office of a curate at St. Michael's in 1686. He held this office until his death in 1698. Cooper was the last Early Modern English author who wrote his grammar in Latin. Among the grammars analysed in this study, his work is the only one to be influenced by John Wilkins' universal grammar An essay towards a real character, and a philosophical language (1668). Moreover, John Wallis' Grammatica Linguce Anglicance also served as a reference work. Cooper aimed at addressing both children and adults and was motivated by the desire to cultivate the mother tongue. He was not only interested in a theoretical presentation of pronunciation, orthography, word formation, and syntax, but also aimed at describing the actual language data. In 1687 Cooper published The English Teacher, a strongly abridged English version of his grammar, which contains only the first sections of his Grammatica (pronunciation and orthography).

The corpus of Early Modern English grammars

17

1.2.14 Guy Miege: The English Grammar (1688) Miege, a Swiss from Lausanne with French as his mother tongue, probably lived from 1644 to 1718. He studied philosophy in his home town for about two years before he started working for the ambassador Charles Howard, Earl of Carlisle, and in this position travelled across the whole of Europe. In the 1670s, Miege lived in England, where he taught French and geography. He also published several books about the State of England, such as The New State of England and, after the union with Scotland, The Present State of Great Britain. His linguistic interest is documented by his English grammar and by a number of works on the French language (A New French Grammar, A Short Dictionary, English and French etc.). Miege's intended readership are both native speakers and foreign readers, school children and adults. His grammar is well-structured and written in a clear style. It consists of two parts: The first part deals with English morphology including numerous comments on word formation, the second is dedicated to pronunciation and spelling.

1.2.15 Joseph Aickin: The English Grammar (1693) The biographical details known about Joseph Aickin are limited to the information given on the title page of his grammar, where he is introduced as a Master of Arts and teacher at the Free-School of Londonderry. Aickin's grammar consists of two parts and deals with grammar, pronunciation, spelling, and homophones. The page numbers quoted in this study refer to the second part only as this is the section dedicated to grammar in the narrow sense, i.e. morphology ("Etymology"), syntax, and prosody. The book contains a number of illustrations, which gives reason to believe that it was written for a younger readership. However, Aickin also wanted to address adults, including foreign readers (A6r). His grammar is clearly influenced by the works of Wallis and Cooper, even though it is more conservative.

1.2.16 A. Lane: A Key to the Art of Letters (1700) The only biographical details known about Lane are taken from the title page of his grammar, where the author's career and position are indicated:

18

Introduction

"By A. LANE, M.A. late Master of the Free-School of Leominster in Herefordshire, now Teacher of a private School at Mile-end-green near Stepney." Lane's Key to the Art of Letters is a revised and enlarged version of the first part of his 1695 publication A rational and speedy method of attaining to the Latine tongue. Like Newton, Lane chose the form of a dialogue for his grammar. He covers the fields pronunciation, morphology, and syntax. Following the structure of the grammar by Petrus Helias, a theologian of the twelfth century, these topics are dealt with under the headings Letters, Syllables, Words, and Sentences. This unorthodox classification might be responsible for the confusing structure of the grammar.

1.3

Models of the English grammars

In view of the minor role English played at the beginning of the Early Modern English period, it is not surprising that the authors of the first English grammars had no suitable descriptive model at hand. They were inspired by grammars of other languages and mostly relied on grammars of Latin. Occasionally, they also looked at universal grammars. In the period investigated, the grammar by Petrus Ramus and the work by William Lily and John Colet were most influential. Moreover, the influence of John Wilkins' work on language universals can occasionally be traced in Early Modern English grammars. The following overview of these grammars is meant to provide a better understanding of the English grammars.

1.3.1

William Lily and John Colet: A Short Introduction of Grammar (1549)

The Latin grammar A Short Lntroduction of Grammar by Lily and Colet, teacher and headmaster respectively at St. Paul's School, London, was first published in 1548/49. It is known as "Lily's Grammar" and will be referred to by this title in the following. When writing their grammar, Lily and Colet relied on several of their earlier writings, e.g. the syntax part of an earlier publication by Colet, Aeditio (probably first published around 1510, the earliest extant copies date from 1527), and Lily's An introduction of the eyght partes of speche

Models of the English grammars

19

(around 1513). In 1540, Thomas Berthelet revised both parts and published them under the title De octo orationis partium conslructione libellus. Edward's VI decision to make this grammar the authorative reference work for secondary schools led to another revision and the publication of the final version in 1549. In the following years, the grammar, which is also known as "Royal Grammar", was reprinted about 350 times, which gives an idea of its enormous influence on the English tradition of grammar writing. The grammar starts with a description of the parts of speech based on Donatus. Donatus' model is a modified version of Thrax' model in that it disregards the article, because it is irrelevant in Latin. On the other hand, the interjection is separated from the adverb and represents a word class of its own. Donatus' model consists of eight parts of speech. Four are declinable (nouns, pronouns, verbs, and participles), four are indeclinable (adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and interjections). His definitions of the parts of speech contain semantic, formal, syntactic, and functional criteria. The section on the parts of speech is followed by a syntax section entitled "The Concordes of latine speche". This section includes the three concord rules relevant for Latin (subject-predicate, noun-adjective, relative pronoun-antecedent) and a set of guidelines for English-Latin translation. The grammar ends with a collection of Latin song texts and the Latin versions of the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, which were added for exercise purposes.

1.3.2

Petrus Ramus: Grammatica (1572)

Petrus Ramus (* 1515), a French humanist and philosopher of the sixteenth century, lectured at the College de France. He opposed the Aristotelian tradition and late scholasticism, and aimed at a re-organization of the educational canon of the Middle Ages, i.e. trivium and quadrivium. His pedagogical and reformatory works deal with the septem artes (Dialecticae Partitiones, 1549, Rhetoricae Distinctiones, 1549) as well as with metaphysical and theological subject matters. In 1562 Ramus joined the Calvinist movement. After he was forced to leave Paris, he lectured at Heidelberg University. Ramus died in the Massacre of St. Bartholomew on August 24th, 1572. Ramus is mainly concerned with purely formal aspects and neglects semantics. He justifies this approach by claiming that the speakers are fa-

20

Introduction

miliar with the meanings of the individual words anyway so that there is no need to include this field in a grammar. This principle is rigidly followed in Ramus' well-known grammars of the Latm, Greek, and French languages. In England, Ramus' theories were supported by scholars at St. Andrews and Cambridge, but were rejected by the followers of the Aristotelian doctrine. His Latin grammar was translated into English in 1585 and served various English grammarians as a model. It consists of four books: Orthographia, Syllaba, Etymologia, and Syntaxis. Morphology is dealt with in books I and Π, syntax in books ΙΠ and IV. As expected, Ramus uses purely formal definitions of the parts of speech. He distinguishes four word classes and rejects the traditional classification based on the dichotomy declinable vs. indeclinable by arguing that adverbs are actually declinable as they are inflected for comparison. Instead, Ramus bases his classification on the morphological category number. Nouns and verbs are called voces numeri ('words with number') with the noun (i.e. nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and participles) being a vox numeri cum genere et casu ('with gender and case'), while the verb is a vox numeri cum tempore et persona ('with tense and person'). Adverbs (i.e. adverbs, prepositions, and interjections) and conjunctions, on the other hand, are voces sine numero ('words without number'). This scheme nicely illustrates the system of dichotomies characteristic of Ramus' theories. Yet, Ramus' model of the parts of speech is not only problematic with respect to the indeclinable word classes, but also with respect to zero-inflected forms of verbs and nouns (e.g. opus: Both singular and plural). Elements of this subgroup are referred to as voces numeri infinitce, which means that in these cases the existence of the category number does not presuppose morphological marking. In his syntax part Ramus deals with concord (convenientia) and government (rectio). The rules of concord cover the agreement between noun and apposition/attribute on the one hand and between subject and predicate on the other. Moreover, Ramus, holding up the dichotomy structure, not only formulates concord rules for adverbs of degree and adjectives, but also for conjunctions. However, these are not concord rules in the proper sense: Concord of conjunctions refers to word order, while concord of adverbs of degree deals with the degrees of comparison that are acceptable for the respective adverbs.

Models of the English grammars

1.3.3

21

John Wilkins: An Essay Towards a Real Character, And a Philosophical Language (1668)

Dr. John Wilkins (1614-1672) was born as a son of a goldsmith in North Hamptonshire. He studied in Oxford and then lectured at Trinity College, Cambridge. Like Wallis, he was one of the foundation members of the Royal Society and its first secretary in 1662. During the Restoration period he lost his job at Trinity College and was employed by the church. He held various offices in London, Ripon, and Exeter before he was appointed Bishop of Chester, which he remained until his death in 1672 (see introduction to the [1968] facsimile edition). Wilkins was a versatile scholar, who was known for his Essay as well as for several theological and scientific writings. Commissioned by the Royal Society, Wilkins published An Essay Towards a Real Character, And a Philosophical Language in 1668 with the aim of constructing a universal language on the basis of linguistic universals. This language could then take over the function of Latin and facilitate the communication between scholars and merchants. As a clergyman, Wilkins also hoped to spread the "true religion" by means of his universal language (Blr). Wilkins' book consists of four parts. The first part {Prolegomena) deals with the origin of languages, their changes in the course of time and their graphic representation. The second part (Universal Philosophy) resembles more an encyclopaedia and gives details of flora and fauna. The third part is dedicated to grammar (Philosophical Grammar), while the fourth part contains a new notational system of the English language. Wilkins' grammatical approach is influenced by the Greek tradition. Wilkins modifies Aristotle's distinction between syncategoremata and syndesmoi, distinguishing between integrals and particles instead. These categories do not only cover the traditional parts of speech but also include some morphological categories. In contrast to Aristotle, Wilkins refers by the term integrals to nouns and derived adjectives, i.e. elements that carry the meaning of a sentence and denote objects, concepts or actions (p.298). Particles, on the other hand, become meaningful only in combination with the integrals which in turn are modified by the particles (p.304). The term particles covers copulative verbs, pronouns and interjections ("substitutive"), prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions ("connexive"), articles, and the morphological categories mood and tense ("declarative"). The verb is not considered a separate word class in Wilkins' model, but is analysed as a combination of a copula and an adjective (p.303). The latter probably

22

Introduction

goes back to Dalgarno's Ars Signorum published in 1661 (Funke 1942: 18). In this framework the copula is said to be "essential and perpetual in every compleat (sic) sentence", while the other particles are "not essential, but occasional" (p.298). Compared to the grammars by Lily and Ramus, Wilkins' work had only little influence on the grammars written in the Early Modern English period. There are clear traces, however, in the grammars by Cooper and, less obviously though, by Aickin, who in turn was influenced by Cooper. This brief characterization of both the authors and their models will be followed by a systematic presentation of the statements found in their grammars on the morphology (Chapter 2) and syntax (Chapter 3) of English as written (and spoken) in the 16th and 17th century. This will include the comparison of their statements with modern descriptions of Early Modern English grammar. A strict separation of morphology and syntax, however, is neither always feasible nor useful (see also Barber 1997: 142— 143), so that this distinction is occasionally given up for the sake of a more coherent description. In these cases, references to the corresponding sections will be given.

Chapter 2 The parts of speech

2.1

Parts of speech: Definition and inventory

This section deals with both the inventory of word classes and the definitions and classification models presented in the Early Modern English grammars. Generally, the models of Lily and Ramus (see Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2) had a strong impact on the first Early Modern English Grammars. Bullokar, the first grammarian, took up Lily's model with the traditional eight word classes. They are defined by means of semantic, syntactic, and formal criteria. Like Lily, Bullokar contrasted inflected and non-inflected parts of speech. He was able to occasionally free himself from the Latin tradition, e.g. by classifying the participle among the non-inflected word classes. Yet, Bullokar's grammar is not consistent in this respect: "An Adjective or a Participle in respect of his substantive may be said any of these genders, and therefore called the Commun Gender, so is of cases and numbers in an adjective or participle, and the sooner because of conference with other languages that decline adjectives and participles" (p. 11). Bullokar thus acknowledges the relevance of these categories for the participle even though they are not formally marked. In the following years, Lily's model played a minor role in English grammar writing. The grammarians after Bullokar favoured Ramus' model which they modified more or less extensively. Greaves is the only author who exactly follows Ramus. His system contains the four parts of speech noun, verb, adverb, and conjunction, which are arranged with respect to the category number (p.6). Greaves' definitions include only formal and syntactic aspects. Hume also adopts the Rameian model. Yet his classification is based on the category person as he presents a dichotomy personal-impersonal (p.27). In his definitions, he mostly uses formal and syntactic features. Gill's model differs from Ramus' in that it contains only three word classes, noun, verb, and consignificativa dictio. These word classes are defined by means of functional and formal criteria. This distinction goes back to Aristotle and is also found in Ramus' Scholae, though with slight

24

The parts of speech

alterations. The term consignificativa was introduced by Priscian to replace Aristotle's syncategoremata. It refers to all words which, if taken by themselves, yield no meaningful utterance (Michael 1970: 49). Here Gill follows Ramus in that he bases his classification on the category number, with the group of the consignificativa dictio referring to the word classes without number (p.36). Butler is influenced by Ramus insofar as he also presents a model with four word classes. Yet he modifies the original by substituting the group of the conjunctions by that of the prepositions. His classification of the word classes is not only based on number, but also on case: "Case is the different termination of the same word, in the same Number and Person; as man mans, love loved" (p.32). Thus, with regard to verbs, case denotes the tense morpheme. Butler's definitions contain formal and syntactic criteria, but also semantic aspects. Primary word classes like the noun or the verb are characterized formally (with/without number or case), while further sub-categorization relies on semantic and syntactic criteria (e.g. "quality" vs. "name of a thing" to distinguish adjectives and nouns). Jonson's description of the parts of speech is a mixture of the classical model by Lily and the Rameian model. With Lily, Jonson lists eight word classes in Chapter IX (p.56), to which he adds the article as a ninth class. The arrangement into columns suggests a distinction between inflected and non-inflected word classes, with the latter including the article (p.57). Yet, in the course of his grammar, Jonson joins the followers of Ramus and distinguishes only nouns, verbs, conjunctions, and adverbs, which are grouped according to the category number. Moreover, t he purely formal definitions also reflect Ramus' influence, which led Funke (1940: 126) to list Jonson among the followers of Ramus and to consider Chapter IX an "inorganic insertion". The publication of Jonson's grammar marks the end of a period of almost 50 years during which the model by Petrus Ramus dominated the English grammar tradition. No other models were found within this period, nor did Ramus' model have any influence beyond this period. The works of Ramus' followers thus form an isolated block in the Early Modern English period as regards the model of word classes. All later authors, with the exception of Cooper who is influenced by Wilkins' universal grammar adopt Lily's model. However, Lily's followers mostly modify the original model to a greater or lesser extent. Poole, the first "post-Rameian" grammarian, takes over Lily's word class model without any changes. The eight parts of speech are

Parts of speech: Definition and inventory

25

divided into two groups depending on their ability to inflect. As in the classical model, the participle belongs to the inflected parts of speech (p.2). Like nouns and pronouns, it is inflected for the category case, while verbs are inflected for mood and tense. Poole uses formal, semantic, and syntactic criteria in his definitions: The formal aspects are summed up in his introductory chapter about the word classes (p.2), semantic properties are added in later chapters. Wharton also adopts Lily's model and explicitly emphasizes its validity for the English language ("IN the English tongue (like as in the Latine) there bee eight parts", p.32). Punctuation suggests a classification on the basis of the dichotomy inflected/non-inflected, with the participle belonging to the inflected word classes. Wharton's definitions focus on semantics, while formal aspects are of secondary importance. The word class descriptions by Newton (p. 13), Lye (p.l 12), and Aickin (p.2) are also clearly influenced by Lily's model. Like Wharton, Aickin concentrates on semantic properties. His predecessors Newton and Lye combine formal, semantic, and syntactic criteria. Howell (p.42), under the influence of his personal friend Jonson, stresses that the article has to be added to the eight traditional word classes. Miege additionally introduces the group of Particles, which comprises all short words irrespective of their word class (p.2). The arrangement into columns points to a classification inflected/non-inflected, and the participle occurs among the inflected word classes. Miege makes use of semantic, formal, and syntactic features in his definitions. Wallis, in contrast to the other grammarians takes it for granted that his readers are familiar with the parts of speech due to their existence in any language: "Has autem dum traditurus sum, nollem exspectetis ut singula artis vocabula, quae Grammatical Anglicans cum aliarum linguarum Grammaticis sunt communia, sigillatim explicarem ... Esset enim plane supervacaneus labor; cum nemo sit, Latinae linguae non prorsus ignarus, qui isthasc ignorare posit" (p.68) ["In setting out these rules, do not expect me to explain each individual grammatical term; these terms are used in grammars of other languages as well as in English (...) It would clearly be wasted labour to explain them, because they must be familiar to anyone having even the slightest acquaintance with the Latin language", trans. Kemp 1972: 277].

26

The parts of speech

His definitions thus only deal with formal differences between English and Latin, while the meaning and the function of the parts of speech are neglected since they are the same in all languages. Lily's system manifests itself throughout Wallis' grammar, yet Wallis introduces some radical changes: He discusses nouns and adjectives in separate chapters because of their different morphological properties. Furthermore, Wallis takes over Ramus' view that pronouns are irregular nouns, but still deals with them in a separate chapter. Verbs and participles are taken together, while adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and interjections are considered to be word classes of their own. Yet they are all discussed in one single chapter as Wallis considers them to be language universals, which need no detailed explanation (p. 108). Even though there is no explicit classification of the parts of speech, the structure of Wallis' grammar suggests a classification into declinable and indeclinable word classes. Generally speaking, Wallis' model represents a combination of the two influential models by Lily and Ramus. In spite of many correspondences with Ramus' model, it is problematic to list Wallis among the Rameians as he explicitly considers adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and interjections to be separate word classes. Cooper's grammar also differs from the other Early Modern English grammars as it is the only work influenced by Wilkins (see Section 1.3.3). Cooper adopts Wilkins' distinction between integrales and particulce, which is based on the role of the elements within a sentence: "Dictiones quae principales constituunt sententias partes, integrales vocantur; quae circumstantias sensum modificantes, particulce nuncupantur" (p.96) ["The most important elements of the sentence are called integrals, those which modify the meaning are called particulce", my translation]. Unlike Wilkins, Cooper considers not only nouns to be integrales, but also verbs and pronouns. This puts him closer to the Aristotelian tradition. In Cooper's model, adverbs as well as conjunctions and interjections belong to the particulce. In contrast to Wilkins' grammar, prepositions and articles are not granted word class status in Cooper's model, but are considered to be properties of the noun (pp.116, 127). In this respect, Cooper's system resembles that of Wallis, where prepositions are considered a word class of their own, but are dealt with in connection with the nouns because they function as case markers (p.73). Cooper includes semantic criteria in his definitions, yet the main focus is on formal aspects. Lane's grammar differs from all the other works in that it cannot be attributed to any of the three models.12 Lane distinguishes four word classes,

Parts of speech: Definition and inventory

27

substantives (i.e. nouns), adjectives, verbs, and particles (p. 19). Particles express the "manner of an action" (p.20) and comprise conjunctions, adverbs, and prepositions (p.56). Interjections, on the other hand, are not considered to be words at all as they are "Natural Expressions or Signs of the Passions of the mind" (p.60) common to all languages. In Lane's grammar, the parts of speech are mostly defined semantically {thing, manner of a thing, action, manner of an action, p.20). In the individual chapters, these definitions are supplemented by formal and syntactic aspects. According to Michael (1970: 498), Lane's system marks a turning point as for the first time the characteristics of the English language are paid greater attention to. So far, the study has shown that all authors with the exception of Cooper and Lane are to a greater or lesser extent influenced by either Lily or Ramus. Yet despite their common starting point, there are numerous subtle differences between the grammars.13 For the reasons described below both models are inadequate for a description of English. In Ramus' model, the distinction between vox numeri and vox sine numero is problematic because adjectives are nouns and thus belong to the voces numeri. Yet an uncritical application to the English language is impossible as the adjective no longer inflected for number in Early Modern English. In order to solve this contradiction, the authors usually adopt Ramus' category of the voces numeri infinita, where number opposition is not formally expressed (Ramus 1572: 48). The same problem arises with respect to the participle, which also belongs to the group of nouns in Ramus' model. Even though all Rameians, Greaves excepted, modify the original model, they cannot present convincing solutions to the problems that arise when applying Ramus' model to English. Lily's model also proved to be inadequate for the description of English. Most authors adopt Lily's distinction between inflected and noninflected word classes without any modifications. As in Ramus' model, the classification of adjectives and participles poses a problem to which the authors present different "solutions". Grammarians like Poole disregard the contradiction and analyse the adjective in an honest man as singular masculine (p.20). Other authors like Bullokar are more modern in that they maintain the category in their models, but emphasize the absence of formal marking. Miege and others explicitly stress the irrelevance of the categories case, gender, and number for the adjective, but still list it among the inflected word classes so that the contradiction remains. Other grammarians consider comparison as a morphological category of the adjective and

28

The parts of speech

thereby justify its classification among the inflected parts of speech. However, this solution disregards the fact that adverbs can also be compared, but are nevertheless considered to be an uninflected word class. A clear distinction between adjectives and nouns is first found in Wallis' grammar, but only at the end of our period (Lane, 1700) are there two separate word classes. Similar problems arise with respect to the participle, which is considered as a separate word class by most of Lily's followers. Only some authors in Lily's tradition analyse the participle as a non-finite form of the verb, similar to the infinitive. It is also noticeable that the contradictions that arise in connection with the participle are less often discussed than the problems that occur when trying to integrate the adjective into Lily's model. However, not only the inventory of word classes, but also their definitions are strongly influenced by the classical models. Followers of Ramus mostly disregard semantic aspects even though a purely formal definition is of very little use for the description of a language with a reduced inflectional system like English. The grammarians in Lily's tradition use formal, semantic, and functional features, which are often taken from Lily's prototypical definitions. The field of definitions is therefore not very innovative, which might be due to its abstract character. In fact, on this abstract level the impact of Lily's and Ramus' models on the authors is even stronger, which results in less adequate descriptions, whereas the statements given in later chapters focus on the English language and are more to the point. Generally speaking, it emerged that the authors uncritically adopted the then popular word class models by Lily, Ramus, and Wilkins without questioning their usefulness for a language with a reduced inflectional system such as English. On the one hand, the parts of speech were considered as language universale, which meant that a model based on Latin could be transferred to any other language, on the other hand, there were no other models the Early Modern English grammarians could rely on. In the following, we are going to take a closer look at the statements concerning the individual word classes. This chapter follows the structure of most Early Modern English grammars (and some modern studies) and presents the eight word classes one by one. The article is dealt with in a separate section (Section 2.4) in order to give a better overview of its status in the contemporary grammars.

Nouns and adjectives

2.2

29

Nouns and adjectives

In contrast to our modern understanding, the majority of Early Modern English grammarians understand by the term noun both substantives (i.e. nouns in the modern sense) and adjectives. This classification is motivated by the model of Latin grammar: Latin is a highly inflected language, with the adjective sharing many morphological properties with the noun. A minority of authors, however, subsumes under the term noun additionally pronouns and occasionally also participles. In order to avoid terminological confusion when comparing contemporary and modern statements, we will specify the meaning of the term noun in quotations in square brackets where necessary. In all other cases, the term noun is used in its modern meaning and does not include adjectives, pronouns, and participles.

2.2.1 2.2.1.1

Definition General definition

All authors include definitions in their descriptions and distinguish nouns and adjectives. The authors in the tradition of Ramus usually define the noun (i.e. noun substantive and adjective) formally as a "word of number". Butler is the only Rameian author to consider semantic aspects ("name of a thing", p.33). In some cases, the authors contrast the noun with the verb and refer to it as "word of one person" (Hume, p.28) or "word of Number and Case, without difference of time" (Butler, p.33). Lily's followers mostly adopt his semantic definition "A NOUNE is the name of a thing that may be seen, felt, heard or understanded" (p.7)14 and sometimes add formal and syntactic elements (e.g. Bullokar: "A noun ... may the easilier (sic) be known from every other part of speech by someone of these articles, A, An, or The", p.l). Cooper and Lane, who do not belong to either of the two main traditions define nouns and adjectives by means of semantic criteria (Cooper, p.96; Lane, p.20).

30

The parts of speech

2.2.1.2

Distinction between nouns and adjectives

The distinction between nouns and adjectives is mentioned by all authors, yet Lane is the only one to consider them as two separate word classes. Nouns and adjectives are distinguished with the help of formal aspects (inflection), semantic criteria (name vs. quality), and syntactic properties (nouns and adjectives as possible realizations of the head in the noun phrase). Table 1 sums up the criteria used in the grammars: Table 1. Criteria for the distinction of nouns and adjectives

Bullokar Greaves Hume Gill Butler Jonson Poole Wallis Wharton Howell Newton Lye Cooper Miege Aickin Lane

formal X X

semantic

syntactic X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X

As was to be expected, most authors in the Rameian tradition focus on formal differences. Only Hume and Butler also include syntactic and/or semantic aspects. The contradiction arising from the fact of considering the uninflected adjective as vox numeri is either not discussed (Greaves) or is solved with Ramus' concept of the vox numeri inflnita (e.g. Gill: "Adiectiuis plerisque nulla est differentia numeri, nisi gratia substantiui cui adherent", p.39 ["there is no difference in number for most adjectives, except by virtue of the nouns they modify", trans. Danielsson and Gabrielson 1972: 115], similarly Jonson). Like the Rameians, Wallis also concentrates

Nouns and adjectives

31

on formal aspects, since he considers semantic properties to be universal and therefore part of general knowledge. Most grammarians in the tradition of Lily also comment on formal differences between the noun and the adjective. In this respect, Poole and Lane are most conservative in that they grant nouns and adjectives the same morphological properties ("An Adjective ... can be declined in good Sense with a Substantive ... thus, A Wise Man, of a Wise Man ...", Lane, p.31). Most definitions are supplemented by syntactic or semantic aspects, yet, all three domains are only found in Butler, Wharton, and Lye. There are striking parallels between the descriptions by Wharton and Butler. However, Wharton adds Poole's comments on semantics to the definition he copied from Butler. Newton, who usually closely follows Wharton and Butler, neglects formal aspects (p. 13).

2.2.1.3

Distinction between common and proper nouns

The distinction between common and proper nouns was first introduced by the Stoics. In the corpus of Early Modern English grammars it is first found in Gill's grammar ("nomen commune" vs. "nomen proprium", p.36) and is later on taken up by all grammarians with the exception of Butler and Aickin. Poole is the first to extend this distinction to adjectives as well. Common and proper nouns are distinguished by means of extra-linguistic reference, use of the article, and capitalization (p.3). Comparable remarks are found in the later grammars by Lye and Miege. Howell sets up a separate class for proper names of people ("Personal", p.44). In contrast to this rather popular distinction, the dichotomy concrete vs. abstract nouns appears relatively late. It is first found in Cooper's (1685) grammar (pp.97-101) and is taken over by all following authors (Lane: "Corporeal" vs. "incorporeal", p.20). Generally, the definitions once more prove to be a rather homogenous field of grammar writing as they mostly repeat earlier phrases. Yet there are some developments as for instance the distinction of common and proper nouns which was absent from the pioneering works and which eventually made its way into the grammars in the course of the seventeenth century.

32

The parts of speech

2.2.2

Morphological categories

There is considerable disagreement among the Early Modern English grammarians about the relevant morphological categories. For nouns, the relevance of the category number is generally acknowledged, while case and gender are controversially discussed. The divergences are even bigger when dealing with the morphological categories of the adjective. Some authors claim that it is inflected for the same categories as the noun, whereas others realize the lack of morphological marking, but nevertheless preserve the categories as such. In other grammars, comparison is considered as a morphological category of the adjective. In the following, the Early Modern English statements concerning the morphological categories number, case, and gender will be looked at more closely.

2.2.2.1

Number

When defining number, the authors in Lily's tradition distinguish singular and plural by means of semantic criteria ("one" vs. "more than one", Bullokar, p.2). Occasionally, they add formal and syntactic features, such as inflectional endings or the use of the articles. The grammarians in Ramus' tradition, on the other hand, only mention endings as formal features and rarely consider semantics (e.g. Hume, p.27). Lane is influenced by Lily, while Cooper does not define number at all. Number is generally acknowledged as a relevant category of the noun, even though the Early Modern English definitions can vary considerably in length and quality. Regarding the adjective, number is discussed controversially. Earlier authors consider the adjective as word with number, with Bullokar being more innovative than the followers of Ramus: Whereas the latter keep up the category despite the lack of morphological marking, Bullokar accepts number only for a few adjectives, i.e. the numerals (a hundred [sic] bullocks, a thousand shep, p.2), and thus confuses form and meaning. Compared to Bullokar's description, the statements by Poole, the second follower of Lily after Bullokar, must be considered a step backwards, as the adjective is explicitly qualified as a word with number (p.20). Wallis is the first author to stress the invariability of the adjective: "ADjectiva, sine omni vel Casuum, vel, Generum, vel etiam Numerorum discrimine, suis Substantivis adjunguntur", p.79 ["Adjectives are linked to

Nouns and adjectives

33

their substantives without showing any indication of case, gender, or even number", trans. Kemp 1972: 303]. This point of view is more or less closely followed by later authors. Table 2 summarizes the different ways of plural formation mentioned in the Early Modern English grammars: Table 2. Plural formation of nouns

Bullokar Greaves Hume Gill Butler Jonson Poole Wallis Wharton Howell Newton Lye Cooper Miege Aickin Lane

{-s}

{-en}

{zero}

i-mutation

X χ χ χ χ χ

χ χ

χ χ χ χ

χ χ χ χ χ χ

χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ

χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ

χ χ

χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ

χ χ χ

χ χ χ χ

voicing of the fricative χ χ χ χ

χ χ χ χ χ χ χ χ

The overview shows that all authors discuss plural formation in great detail, with the exception of Poole whose enumeration man, child, tree is the only hint at the existence of different possibilities of plural formation. The specific statements made by the Early Modern English grammarians will be presented in the following.

2.2.2.1.1 Regular plural formation All grammarians except Poole deal with the regular plural in {-s}. The descriptions usually include comments on the distribution of the allomorphs and on graphic changes, which are only absent from the grammars

34

The parts of speech

by Hume and Howell. Greaves and Lye concentrate on the distribution of the graphic variants and , and disregard pronunciation. For Greaves, horses and branches are two separate cases, because the former is formed by adding -s, the latter by adding -es (p.6). The other authors are interested in the distribution patterns of the variants /iz, z, s/, yet their opinions vary considerably: Bullokar starts from the graphic realizations of the relevant stem-final phonemes, but he forgets some phonemes while doubling all those which occur with different graphic signs (e.g. -ies) among the exceptions (pp.29-30). Thus Butler and Jonson are the only ones who give a comprehensive account of the distribution of the regular plural, with Butler's description being preferred for its greater detail. The deviating rules found in Bullokar's Bref Grammar (1586) should not be interpreted to the author's disadvantage, since it has to be taken into consideration that they reflect the

Nouns and adjectives

35

linguistic situation of the late sixteenth century when the rules valid today were not yet fully established.

2.2.2.1.2 Plural formation with i-mutation Plural forms with vowel alternation, such as mouse-mice, foot-feet, manmen, are relics of the old plurals with i-mutation. Corresponding forms are mentioned in all grammars: "Sunt et alia pauca irregularia, a mouse, a louse ... pluraliter mice, lice" (Wallis p.70 ["There are a few other irregular forms too: a mouse, a louse ... have the plural mice, lice", trans. Kemp 1972: 283]). However, the authors often fail to make clear that this is actually a closed class of nouns whose pattern is no longer productive in Early Modern English.

2.2.2.1.3 Plural formation with {-en} Nouns with the plural ending {-en} are the last representatives of the Old English weak declension which was given up in favour of the strong declension (Present-Day English {-5} from Old English masculine nominative singular plural {-as}). Yet the ending {-en} was still well-preserved in the southern dialects until the thirteenth century (Blake 1996: 42). In Present-Day English there are only three examples with this ending, i.e. oxoxen, child-children, and brother-brethren, while all other weak nouns either changed their class membership and followed the strong declension or disappeared all together. Oxen is actually the only "pure" form, whereas the two other plural forms contain additional plural markers: Children still preserves the old plural-r, while brethren additionally shows i-mutation of the vowel. It is only a matter of time before these relics will also have disappeared as is underlined by the existence of a regular form oxes in American English (Quirk et al. 1985: 307). Up until the Early Modern English period, plurals in {-en} were more frequent than today. In Shakespeare's works, for instance, we find the forms eyen, shoen, and hosen. Considering the relatively high frequency of {-en}-plurals at that time, it is not surprising that the forms are mentioned in all contemporary grammars except Hume's Orthographie and Congruitie (1619). This gives support to the hypothesis that the loss of {-en} started in the north. Yet, as for i-mutation plurals, the authors fail again to

36

The parts of speech

stress the decreasing frequency of this plural allomorph. Only Butler, Jonson, Wallis, 16 Howell, Cooper, and Miege explicitly point out its low frequency. However, this does not prevent Butler, Jonson, and Howell from including extensive lists, which suggest that {-s} and {-en} are equally frequent. In the case of Butler and Jonson, this impression might result from the fact that they list a lot more examples, including obsolete ones, than the other authors and thus distort the actual relations. Butler, for instance, gives not only the examples of oxen and children, but also margen, brotheren (contracted brethren), chicken, housen, mannen (contracted men), hosen, peasen, been, eyen, foen, shoon, and finally kine and swine. The latter is considered as the irregular plural of sow, maybe in analogy with cow-kine (p.34). Jonson's description (p.60) differs only slightly from Butler's account. While some authors correctly refer to language history to explain the forms in {-en} (e.g. Butler, Wallis, Cooper), others do not comment on its origin. Bullokar is the only one to explain the ending with its phonological environment. In his opinion, {-en} only occurs with nouns "ending in x, or s" as is illustrated by oxen and housen. Counterexamples as for instance shoon ({-en} without χ or s) and axes ({-5} despite x) are disregarded. Occasionally, the grammarians mention that there are regular alternatives for some nouns, which in some cases are even more frequent than the forms in {-en}. Yet Görlach's statement that -e«-plurals "were criticized by grammarians" (Görlach 1991: 80) is not confirmed by the grammars analysed in this study.

2.2.2.1.4 Plural formation with voicing offricatives Plural formation with voicing of fricatives (= voicing plural) occurs in all works but the grammars by Hume, Jonson, and Howell. 17 Yet there are considerable differences between the individual descriptions. All authors mention the alternation /f-v/ (e.g. dwarf-dwarves) which is most striking because of the change in spelling. The pairs /Θ-6/ (e.g. mouth-mouths) and /s-z/ (e.g. house-houses), however, are discussed less frequently. The former was first noticed by Butler (cloth, mouth, p.34) and was subsequently only mentioned by Wallis, Lye, and Cooper. The first occurrence of the alternation of /s-z/ is found in Wallis' grammar (p.70-71) and is later only taken up by Cooper (p. 127). In fact, the voicing of /s/ in house had already been mentioned by Gill, who, due to his artificial inflectional system, put

Nouns and adjectives

37

the noun into group three (nouns with change of syllable number in the plural) instead of linking it to the other voicing plurals in group two. None of the authors seemed to be aware of the historical background, i.e. voicing of the fricative in intervocalic position because of the initial vowel of the inflectional ending. While most authors remain silent on the origin of these forms, others give a phonological explanation. Bullokar, for instance, formulates a general rule ("Change f alway into vs", p.7), which he himself does not strictly follow {roof-roofs, p.7). Miege wants to limit the alternation /f-v/ to nouns ending in - / / -fe with the exception of those ending in -oof (p.30). Counterexamples like beliefs or hooves are disregarded.

2.2.2.1.5 Plural formation with zero Table 2 shows that the unmarked plural (such as fish, sheep) is mentioned less often than other irregular plurals. While zero plurals occur in all early grammars up to Gill (1619), they are missing in the works by Butler, Jonson, and Poole and are only taken up again by Wallis (1653). Howell, Lye, and Aickin also neglect zero plurals, which is not surprising in view of their minimalist descriptions. Some authors take the zero plurals and the pluralia tantum together (Bullokar, Greaves, Gill, Jonson, Howell, and Miege), with Jonson, Howell, and Miege listing them in connection with abstract nouns. Greaves groups them with proper names, singularia tantum (news), and nouns which do not occur in both numbers ("Carentia altero singulari/plurali", p.7 ["Others lack the singular or the plural", my translation]).

2.2.2.1.6

Summary

In general, it can be assumed that the Early Modern English grammarians were not familiar with the reasons for the co-existence of various plural patterns. This is reflected in historically wrong explanations (e.g. Bullokar's phonological explanation of the distribution of {-5} and {-en}) and also in the arbitrary classifications of these exceptions as is illustrated by Gill's model: In the Latin tradition, he distinguishes three declensions on the basis of their plural formation (pp.40^1). In the first group ("vocalis mutatur in plurali" ["whose root vowel is changed in the plural", trans.

38

The parts of speech

Danielsson and Gabrielson 1972: 116]) there are nouns with i-mutation as well as two general types of exceptions which are referred to as "excessus" (women, brethren) and "defectus" (zero plurals). The second declension includes the regular non-syllabic plurals, moreover the exceptions of voicing plurals and nouns with identical meaning of the singular and the plural (penny/pennies, pence). The third declension is characterized by a change of the syllable number and comprises regular syllabic plurals with the allomorph IxzJ and the {-en}-plurals. The connection between /iz/ and the other variants of {-5} is not recognized. Furthermore, the authors occasionally make assignments to one or the other declension, which are wrong from the point of view of the historical linguist, since the majority of all grammarians had only little knowledge of the history of the English language. Thus we find incorrect analogies such as sow-swine or the "contraction thesis" according to which men is a contracted form of the {-e/2}-plural mannen. This explanation was proposed by Butler and was later on repeated by Jonson, Wallis, Wharton, Newton, and Cooper. Occasionally, brethren is also explained as a contraction of brotheren without comment on the vowel alternation (Butler, Jonson, Wallis, Wharton and others). Strikingly enough, the foreigner Miege is the only one to notice the semantic difference between brothers and brethren ("The last is hardly used but amongst Divines, or else in a burlesk Sense", p.31). Sometimes, a plural form is assigned to two different groups. Wallis, for instance, considers chicken and swine as relics of a weak plural and at the same time as zero plurals (p.70). The possibility of nouns having more than one plural marker (kine, brethren, children) is not taken into consideration by any of the authors. Only Gill makes an attempt at covering these nouns by labelling them "excessus" (p.41). In conclusion, one can say that already the first grammar of English, the Bref Grammar by Bullokar, contains a consistent description of the plural formation of nouns which includes all formation patterns. Yet Bullokar's achievements are diminuished by several inaccurate explanations, e.g. the distribution of the variants of {-5} or the conditions for the occurrence of {-en} and voicing /f-v/. Not all descriptions of later authors reach the same level as Bullokar's, as becomes obvious from Algeo's (1985: 195) comment that Greaves' plural description is "pretty thin milk compared with Bullokar's." Especially zero plurals and voicing plurals are frequently omitted. Thus we cannot speak of a progress in the tradition of grammar writing in this field. Yet we can occasionally witness a higher degree of adequacy as far as the description of the individual formation patterns is

Nouns and adjectives

39

concerned. Nevertheless, there are also fields which are described less adequately in later grammars (e.g. the distribution patterns of the variants of {-*})· Furthermore, a comparative analysis shows clear parallels between some of the grammars. There are, for instance, resemblances between the works of Jonson and his personal friend Howell and between Wallis and Cooper. Less obvious are the parallels between the works of Cooper and Aickin. Finally, there are clear correspondences between the grammars of Wharton and his immediate follower Newton. Due to such borrowings, some mistakes were passed on from one grammar to the next as is exemplified by the "contraction thesis" (men < mannen), which was first introduced by Butler and survives until the end of the period. On the whole, the hypothesis of a continuous development of descriptive adequacy has to be rejected as far as plural formation is concerned. This results from the strong impact of Latin grammars on the one hand, and the then widespread tradition of plagiarism on the other.

2.2.2.2

Case

With respect to the category case, the differences between the grammars are even more significant. The first controversial point concerns the fundamental question whether case is a category of the English noun or not. Some authors in the classical tradition of Lily and Ramus do not hesitate to adopt their respective systems (i.e. a six-fold case system with nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, and ablative). Others categorically oppose the concept of a morphologically marked case in English, which leads to a re-interpretation of the genitive. There are also contrary views as to the relevance of the category case for the English adjective. Generally speaking, all authors with the exception of Poole, who considers the adjective to have the same properties as the noun, stress the invariability of the adjective as regards case. Authors like Wallis categorically reject the relevance of adjectival case, while others keep it up even though there is no formal marking: "All our Adjectives are like the Latin aptote frugv. which hath all both numbers and cases, under one voice" (Butler, p.37). The authors use different methods to distinguish the cases of the noun. Most grammarians, regardless of their theoretical background, list various prepositions as indicators of specific cases (e.g. Wharton: "In the English Tongue there is no variation of Nouns [i.e. nouns and adjectives] by Cases,

40

The parts of speech

but only by ... signs of the cases", p.34). This is found similarly in Greaves, even though the category case does not occur in his grammar. Occasionally, these prepositions are viewed as accidence of the noun (Wallis, Cooper, Miege, Aickin). Although prepositional phrases are part of syntax and do not belong to the field of morphology, this "sign theory" is going to be dealt with in this chapter as this is the approach chosen by the majority of grammarians. Apart from the sign theory, the authors also discuss morphological case marking, i.e. the ending {-5} as a feature of the genitive case. Word order as a means to distinguish the cases is only mentioned by Bullokar, Gill, Wallis, and Lane. A minority of authors additionally distinguishes the cases with the help of semantic criteria, which are occasionally reflected by the denominations of the cases, as is illustrated by Bullokar's genitiveproprietary and gainative (=dative). However, Bullokar himself is aware of the inconsistencies of his definition: "Also it may be called the gainativecase being used in like phrase, though in a signification contrary to gain: as, he brake me a bow" (p.4). The dichotomy of genitive versus non-genitive was first formulated by Butler (1634) and is taken up only in the grammars by Jonson and Miege. In this context, Butler speaks of a "rect" and an "oblique" case (p.34). The former is combined with various prepositions to express the Latin cases, even though these cases do not exist in English (p.35). Jonson mentions these equivalents in his syntax part (p.81). Miege can be said to be the most progressive author in this respect as he completely refrains from giving case equivalences (pp.33-34). In the French version of his English grammar, Miege criticizes the efforts of his colleagues to set up a Latinbased case system for English: "Les Grammairiens ä la vieille Mode, qui prennent toutes Leurs Mesures de la Langue Latine, et qui se croiroient perdus s'il s'en ecartoient tant soit peu, declinent nos Noms (ä la maniere des Latins) avec six cas en chaque Nombre. Iis y font venir ä toute force le Nominatif, le Genitif, le Datif, l'Accusatif, le Vocatif et l'Ablatif; qui sont autant de Fantömes dans nos Langues Vulgaires...il n'y a rien de tel dans l'Anglois ni dans le Franpois, a quoi bon multiplier les choses sans necessite, et remplir les Grammaires d'un Fatras inutile" ["The grammarians in the old tradition, who take all their rules from Latin and consider themselves to be lost if they detach themselves from the classical system, decline their nouns (like in Latin) for six cases in both numbers. They want to impose by all means the cases nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, and ablative which are

Nouns and adjectives

41

simply phantoms in our vernacular languages... there is no such thing in English nor in French, what is the use of multiplying unnecessary things and cram the grammars with useless rules."] (Miege 1749: 78; quot. Brekle 1975: 310, footnote 67)

All remaining authors list five or six cases, i.e. the corresponding prepositional phrases. However, their formulations often remain vague and do not allow for clear statements regarding their modern or traditional position. The authors usually mention the reduced system of endings of English without realizing the consequences for the case system. Hume, Gill, Wharton, and Lane, for instance, stress the formal identity of most "cases", and maintain the category even though it is expressed by different means ("Casus sunt sex; qui non terminatione internoscuntur; sed aut Loco, aut signorum adiectione", Gill, p.40 ["There are six cases, not distinguished by inflection, but either by their sentence-position or by modifying words", trans. Danielsson and Gabrielson 1972: 115]). Poole is even more strongly influenced by the Latin tradition as he considers the prepositional phrases themselves to be cases and not just case equivalents (p.4). In his description (as well as in Gill's), the morphologically marked genitive with {-5} is of secondary importance, as it does not fit into this system.18 The description of Lye marks the opposite end of the scale. Even though he mentions case equivalents, he stresses that they only represent correspondences of Latin cases ("The English, instead of changing the termination-or-endings of Nouns Substantive, prefix-or-set before them Articles", p. 114) and does not infer the existence of this category for the English language ("Note. The English Tongue hath no Cases, nor Genders", p. 112). Bullokar also takes over the Latin system to a large extent, but expresses his viewpoint more cautiously: "A Noun-Substantive may be declined, or at the least used in five cases" (p.3, emphasis mine). The fact that he speaks of "use" shows that he has noticed the lack of formal marking in English. This can also be seen from his paradigms, which only comprise the base form and the genitive, thereby anticipating the two-case system: "But the same speech [= nominative] used gainatively is called the gainative case, and being called or spoken unto is said to be the vocative case" (p.4). Bullokar also modifies the Latin model in that the ablative and the accusative fall together in his scheme. Wallis and with him Newton, Lye, Cooper, and Aickin can be seen in direct contrast to the authors discussed before, as they rigorously reject case as a morphological category. As a consequence, "real" genitive forms

42

The parts of speech

are not analysed as nouns but as denominal adjectiva possessiva, because they function as modifiers (Wallis, p.80). Wallis and after him Newton point out that it is also possible to replace these possessive adjectives by prepositional phrases with of (pp.80 and 19 respectively). Traces of this model can also be found in Lane, yet in contrast to his predecessors, he stresses that these forms are actually nouns in the genitive (p.68). Nevertheless, these authors also mention aspects of the sign theory. Newton, for instance, copies the sign theory from Wharton's grammar (pp.17-18) and illustrates it with Wharton's examples. Cooper and Aickin also accept prepositions as equivalents of the Latin cases ("quorum omnium praspositiones anglice supplent locum; & de his tota fere dependet syntaxis", Cooper, pp. 127-128 ["this is taken over by the English prepositions; they usually determine the syntax", my translation], and "which defect in our Tongue is supplyed by the aid of Prepositions", Aickin, p.6). Wallis, finally, also acknowledges this function of the preposition (pp.73-76) and refers to these phrases as vox nominativa/accusativa. This sheds a different light on the evaluation of Wallis as the "great innovator" of the description of the English case system (Vorlat 1975: 433, similarly also Brekle 1975: 309). To consider his remarks as a "systematic attack on the imposition of Latin grammatical categories upon English" (Vorlat 1975: 426) seems exaggerated, especially as Wallis overshoots the target (as is acknowledged by Vorlat as well) and disregards the combination of analytic and synthetic elements characteristic of the English language. Butler's description therefore has to be given priority, all the more so as he wrote his grammar 20 years before Wallis. As far as the inventory of case prepositions is concerned, the authors agree in large parts. The grammars are based more or less on the case equivalents given in Lily's grammar. According to Lily, the nominative and the accusative take the mere article. Wharton, Newton, and Lye go one step further and functionalize the articles: "Note that a is not alwaies a sign of the Nominative case, or the of the Accusative, but that usually it is so, and there is no better way to distinguish them in declining" (Wharton, p.35). The genitive is expressed by of, the dative by to or for, and the ablative mostly by by, from, with. The vocative is either defined semantically or marked by particles such as oh, ho (Gill, p.40). Bullokar is the only one to deviate from this scheme. In contrast to Lily, he considers to and for to be indicators for the accusative, which results in numerous contradictions. Thus, Richard is a dative in Robert giveth Richard a shirt, but an accusa-

Nouns and adjectives

43

tive in Robert giveth a shirt to Richard (p.4). However, these obscure points are not discussed in the grammar. In all grammars except Greaves' Grammatica Anglica (1594), we find comments on the form of the inflected genitive. Occasionally, there are also distribution patterns for the variants of {-s} (Bullokar, Butler, Lane). In this context, Bullokar and Jonson also mention the homophony of the genitive singular and the genitive/nominative plural: Bullokar suggests to use different spellings to disambiguate the nominative plural and the genitive singular at least in writing ( and respectively, p.5) and suggests to mark the genitive plural by doubling the ending ("roofses", p.7). Jonson, on the other hand, is more interested in the distinction of the nominative and the genitive in the plural ( and respectively, p.59) and neglects the opposition of genitive singular and genitive plural. The application of Jonson's rules varies according to the editions of his grammars, which gives reason to believe that either Jonson himself did not strictly follow them or that the printers were not familiar with them. Since the age of Chaucer, it is possible to add the ending {-5} to phrases as well (Traugott 1972: 124; Graband 1965: 121). The first examples of these group genitives are found in Jonson's grammar and are adopted by most of the later grammarians. Wallis, Cooper, his follower Aickin, and finally Lane approach these phrases logically ("when two Substantives are relative, s is added after the second, as the King of Spains gold", Aickin, p.20), while Miege is more schematic ("In case of three Substantives put together, the middle one carries the s; As, the King of England's Subjects", p.34). The grammarians' choice of examples is in line with Rosenbach's findings: She could show that all group genitives found in the Helsinki Corpus have the structure King ofX's object, which suggests that King ofX is actually perceived as one name (Rosenbach 2002: 205). The construction of the split genitive, which was common in Middle English (Traugott 1972: 124) occurs as an alternative only in Jonson's grammar ("the Duke of Mysia'.s- men; for the Dukes men o/Mysia", p.72). This supports the claim that the split genitive is a disappearing pattern, which is replaced by the group genitive from 1550 onwards (Graband 1965: 121; Görlach 1991: 82). The apostrophe as a marker of the genitive was not yet regularly used in Early Modern English. Genitives with apostrophe occur in Shakespeare's text, where they represent rare exceptions. In the Early Modern English period, the apostrophe is mainly found with words ending in -o and -a (Brosnahan 1961: 364). It was only towards the end of the seventeenth

44

The parts of speech

century that the use of the apostrophe was becoming more regulated (Jespersen 1909-1949, 4: 253-254). In the case of the plural, the apostrophe only becomes more frequent in the eighteenth century, i.e. after the Early Modern English period. In the Early Modern English grammars, the apostrophe as a marker of the genitive is first mentioned by Hume, who uses it exclusively in the singular (p.29). In the grammars by Jonson, Poole, and later on in those by Lye and Aickin, the apostrophe seems to be used arbitrarily and is not further commented upon. Wallis is the first to formulate a rule for the use of the apostrophe. In his opinion, the apostrophe serves to distinguish the nominative plural from the genitive, the latter being marked in spelling by ' > C ,-ϊ • Ο) j s I ^ £3 α. ο >

5:

2

δ

2

U C C

ο

>

5 U Ä • i Ö 5 r* l c a cfl Ο fe-B | ^ ° ο

*α

=

ε Μ.

-3

5 ä

Β ο

ω s > -Q

ο·

ο 3 •5 j ä δ ε c 3 3 fe ο ο « (D « b eg •S > u B · ^ Si > ää

>

°· ε

" 5 ο ^ ^ γλ ~ Χ §· ω ο 'S s s S = S - s 1α> I gl fe ο CO α) ρ λ £ 3 'ΐ § . £ äι—J Cο/3 μ ίΛ ? Ο Ο

t-

ε

3 — M-i vi u d

Ο ή υ ~ -fc (β c ο U

Λ

a -σ c "·" Ü ji " !1 ι—

Ο

Τ3 3

^ J

•C £ — ϊ ~

5

Ο Ä S ω« is f

β.

δ 1

I

ο-

S S S I

Ο. Ο ' 'S c Ξ CT 0η (50 Ο. bo

ο

'ν.

Ξ Ϊ

Μ 3

3
-§

Tl s

Co β

3

a

§

c

§ pa

I = ffi Ο

I f ο u Κ Ζ

ο feminine>neuter (Poole, p.21; Bullokar, p.57). Moreover, Bullokar also repeats the hierarchy of persons in this context. Still, his description is more progressive than Poole's, as he objects to the general validity of some rules for English: "This last (for person and gender) serveth latin rule more-rife" (pp.57-58). In conclusion, however, the four authors clearly present a retrograde descriptive model.

3.5.4

Concord between apposition and antecedent

This concord type occurs in Bullokar, Gill, Poole, and Lane, but is also found in Cooper. However, only the examples given in Poole ("Jesus Christ, our Lord, Redeemer and Mediator, was God and Man, King, Priest and Prophet", p.20), Cooper ("Cicero homo eloquentissimus", p. 172), and Lane ("my Father loves me his only child", p.77) illustrate the apposition in the proper sense. Bullokar and Gill, on the other hand, present a wider notion of apposition which was widely accepted at that time: "Throughout the tradition the term is used only incidentally, and in a more general sense than is now customary. ... Any juxtaposition of two elements could be called apposition" (Michael 1970: 136). Bullokar, for instance, does not only refer to the coordination of nouns, but extends the term apposition to any kind of enumeration. Thus, concord between apposition and antecedent also applies to the categories mood, tense, number, and person, when verbs are coordinated (pp. 61-62). Gill additionally includes those cases, where Latin would have two nouns in the same case, as for instance subject and subject complement, nouns linked by coordinating conjunctions etc. (p.77).

218

3.5.5

The sentence

Summary

In summary, the domain of concord rules has to be evaluated rather negatively. Wharton is the only one to doubt their existence in English, but also disregards the concord of subject and predicate. The lack of concord rules in the grammars by Hume, Butler, Wallis, Newton, and Lye is probably due to the brevity of these works (Hume), the intended readership (Lye) or the neglect of syntactic aspects in general (Wallis, Butler, Howell). In Newton's case, the absence of concord rules results from plagiarism (Wharton). On the whole, the grammars by Bullokar, Gill, Poole, and Lane were found to be the most conservative, with Poole being most strongly indebted to the classical description models. The descriptions by Jonson, Cooper, and especially the Swiss Miege, on the other hand, can be characterized as relatively adequate.

3.6

Government

By "government" we understand the way in which a word affects the use or form of another word or phrase.

3.6.1

Prepositions

In accordance with the structure found in numerous Early Modern English grammars, the prepositions and the cases they govern were already discussed in connection with the case systems (see 2.2.2.2). Therefore, the results of the analysis will only briefly be summarized in this section. Most grammars contain a case system in which prepositional phrases function as equivalents of Latin case endings (Bullokar, pp.54, 58; Greaves, p.34; Hume, p.29; Gill, p.40; Butler, p.35; Jonson, p.81; Poole, pp.4, 8; Wallis, pp.73-78; Wharton, pp.34-35; Howell, pp.50-51; Newton, pp.17—18; Lye, pp.114—115; Cooper, pp.127-132; Aickin, pp.5-7; Lane, pp.26-28). Miege is the first Early Modern English author to not include such equivalents. In this context, the grammarians usually concentrate on the prepositions suitable to illustrate the function "case". The cases "governed" by these prepositions correspond to those of their Latin counterparts. Only Bullokar sets up a different model, as in his view, all prepositions govern the accusative (pp.18, 47), even though his "sign model" also

Government 219 includes a dative and a genitive. The inconsistencies inherent in his description are outlined in the section about the noun (see 2.2.2.2). Poole (pp.24-37) and Gill (pp.78-81) are the only ones to give a more detailed account which also includes prepositions other than those required for the expression of the cases. In these grammars, the English prepositions "govern" the same cases as their Latin equivalents. On the whole, Latin influence is very prominent in this section. The works by Poole and Gill mark the negative end of the scale, as they comment in detail on the cases "governed" by the individual prepositions. The grammar by Miege (1688) is located at the other end of the adequacy scale, and there are also positive aspects in the works by Butler and Jonson.

3.6.2

Verbs

The government of verbs is not dealt with in Greaves, Hume, Wharton, Newton, and Lye. Butler only briefly touches upon this subject. Some aspects concerning the government of the verb are maintained throughout the Early Modern English period. One example is the case of the modal auxiliaries which are said to require the infinitive with to (Bullokar, Gill, Jonson, Wallis, Cooper, and Miege). In most grammars, the modal ought is explicitly excepted from this rule (e.g. Bullokar, pp.32-33; Jonson, p.78). Several other verbs are followed by the bare infinitive as well. Corresponding lists are found in Wallis (let, bid, dare, help, p.94), Cooper (bid, dare, help, let, make, p. 144), and Miege (dare, let, make, need, causative have, p.73). Gill, on the other hand, bases his classification on semantics ("verbs of request" require the infinitive without to, p.94). Butler only mentions bid (p.47). Bullokar, by contrast, tries to give a syntactic explanation: He claims that to can be omitted if an accusative is interposed between the verb and the infinitive ("bid him come hither", p.24). He adds that infinitival constructions can in some cases be substituted by a that-clause (p.24). Many authors discuss also the cases required by other verbs and most frequently mention the verb to be, which is followed by the subject case ("Verb-substantive craveth after it such case as doth before it go", Bullokar, p.59; see also Jonson, p.77; Poole, p.22; Cooper, p.172; Aickin, p.17; Lane, pp.79-80). Moreover, the grammarians list various semantic classes of verbs, which govern certain cases. Bullokar (p.60) and Gill (p.88), for instance, mention verbs of asking and teaching, which require two accusa-

220

The sentence

tives. Poole includes verbs of necessity, which always govern the ablative (pp.22-23). Verbs of profit and enrichment occur relatively often and are said to require the dative (Gill, p.86; Poole, p.22; Lane, p.86). The degree of influence of Latin grammar writing varies from grammar to grammar. Gill is undoubtedly most strongly guided by Latin, as he presents a very detailed comparison of English and Latin government rules (pp.85-90). Occasionally, the authors also comment on the omission of to in front of the indirect object. This is first found in Wallis (p.75), yet he does not formulate a rule for this phenomenon. Cooper is the first to set up rules for the dropping of to (p. 173). In his view, verbs like give, yield, owe, pay etc. require an indirect object without preposition, if the object (= accusative) precedes the person (= dative). This opinion is not taken up by later grammarians. Miege for instance limits himself to some examples ("In many Cases, the Preposition is left out. ... After some Verbs. As, give me that Book, send it me, bring it me, fill me a glass; where me is said instead of to me", p.81), while Aickin only adopts Cooper's statements in parts. Lane mentions only verbs of profit, loss, etc. which govern the dative ("he is obliged to me" etc., p.86), with to being dropped in some unspecified cases. In fact, the construction without preposition seems to be a free variant: "as, I gave him a Book, or I gave to him a Book" (p. 86). Transitive verbs are dealt with in Wallis, Cooper, Miege, Aickin, and Lane. Cooper (p. 172) and Aickin (p. 17) as well as Lane agree with Wallis in that these verbs require the accusative (in Wallis' terminology vox Accusativa, p.74). Miege, on the other hand, distinguishes transitive and intransitive verbs with the help of the object: "When a Verb does admit of a Substantive after it, we call it a Verb Active·, if not, 'tis a Verb Neuter" (p.4). Yet Miege acknowledges some exceptions: "... there are Neutral Verbs that are used Actively; as when we say, to run a race, or to run the Gantlop" (p.4). These exceptions inspire Lane to set up a different classification altogether. In his model, both transitive and intransitive verbs belong to the group of active verbs, which are characterized by the fact that they govern an accusative object (p.39). Yet, intransitive verbs represent a special case, as they only admit nouns of related meaning as objects ("A Verb Active Intransitive, is that which in good Sense admits but of one Accusative, and that of its own Signification. As, I live a life, I run a race, I go a journey", p.39). Moreover, these objects can be left out, if they are not modified as in "I live a good life" (p.Sl). Gill is the only one to mention impersonal verbs. He claims that they govern either the accusative or the dative (pp.86-87).

Government

221

Table 42 summarizes the aspects commented on in the Early Modern English grammars. Table 42. Comments on the government of verbs infinitive

infinitive

without to

after modal

be

semantic

indirect

transitive

imperso-

classes

object

verbs

nal verbs

auxiliary Bullokar

syntactically

X

with(out) to X

conditioned

asking teaching

Greaves Hume Gill

verbs of

X

asking

request

X

teaching profit

Butler

bid

Jonson

X

Poole

X X

necessity profit

Wallis

bid, let,

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

dare, help Wharton Newton Lye Cooper

bid, dare,

X

X

let, help, make Miege

dare, let, make,

X

need,

have Aickin

X

Lane

X

profit

Table 42 shows that positive aspects such as the use of the infinitive without to occur independently of the publication dates of the grammars, so that we can assume rather a stand-still or a smooth up-and-down than a continuous development. Only with respect to the indirect object is there a growing awareness of the construction without to to be observed.

222 3.6.3

The sentence Conjunctions

The government of conjunctions used to be more important in Early Modern English than it is today, because the subjunctive was much more frequent. Today, the subjunctive is used in subordinate clauses after conditional and concessive conjunctions. Moreover, it occurs after verbs, adjectives, and nouns of necessity or intention, and after verbs of request or command (Quirk et al. 1985: 1012-1014). Generally, the subjunctive is used more often in subordinate clauses than in main clauses. In the Early Modern English system, the subjunctive was well established and occurred in all the contexts in which it is still found today. It is assumed that the subjunctive was especially frequent after i f , except, whether, (al)though, till, in case, lest, on condition, and unless (Barber 1997: 173; Charleston 1941: 140-143), even though these conjunctions occasionally also occurred with the indicative. In concessive clauses, for instance, the indicative was used when the statement was considered to be a fact, while the choice of the subjunctive signalled the speaker's doubts (Brook 1976: 108; Barber 1997: 173). Moreover, in Early Modern English and until well into the eighteenth century, the subjunctive could also occur with the temporal conjunctions before, till, until, and ere, if they referred to an event in the future (Söderlind 1951: 138; Charleston 1941: 147; Brunner 1960: 2, 311-312). Additionally, in analogy to these constructions, the subjunctive was used to express doubt and wish in r/j«/-clauses with futurereference (Abbott 1966: 262-268), in relative clauses containing a wish (Brook 1976: 108), and in consecutive and final clauses (Scheler 1982: 58). Finally, the subjunctive is used in Early Modern English after adverbs in -ever (Charleston 1941: 146) and in indirect questions, preferably introduced by whether (Brunner 1960: 2, 311-312; Barber 1997: 173). The Early Modern English grammarians comment in more or less detail on various conjunctions and their moods. Hume, Newton, and Lye completely omit this topic. Newton, however, lists subjunctive forms for the verb be (p.35-36), but analyses them as variants of the indicative. Jonson and Wallis, on the other hand, notice a change of the verb form after certain conjunctions, but do not associate these changes with the category mood, as the latter does not occur in their grammars in the first place (see 2.5.3.4.1). Jonson interprets these cases as exceptions from the number concord between subject and predicate (p.78, see 3.5.1), while Wallis sim-

Government

223

ply considers them examples of an "omission" of the ending (p.93). Greaves (p.35), Butler (p.44), and Wharton (p.46) also mention the influence of certain conjunctions on the verb form, yet they only notice this phenomenon for be. Like Jonson and Wallis, they are not aware of the fact that they are actually dealing with a change of mood, but instead consider this to be a special feature of be. Even though these authors do not address the central issue, their statements are taken into consideration, as they allow us to draw conclusions about the forms used after the conjunctions in question. All the other grammarians explicitly refer to a change of mood when discussing conspicuous forms after certain conjunctions. However, most authors agree that this change is formally marked for the verb be only. Bullokar (1586) is the only one who lists subjunctive forms for verbs other than Z>e.48 The remaining authors qualify the predicates in subordinate clauses as subjunctives despite their formal identity with the indicative. They justify their analysis by the claim that the occurrence in a conjunctional clause is sufficient, making additional morphological marking superfluous: "The Subjunctive Mood Is much the same in English with the Indicative; but that it is used with Conjunctions before it, from whence it has got the Name of Subjunctive" (Miege, p.54). Still, Miege does not hesitate to include the forms thou lovest, but he love for the present tense in the paradigm (p.55). This might be an indication that the marked subjunctive was more frequent in the 3rd person singular than in the 2nd person singular, which in any case had become rare after the generalization of you (see 2.3.2.1). The fact that formal marking becomes less important for the analysis of a verb form leads to the assumption that the frequency of marked subjunctives was already declining at that time except for the verb be, whose forms were more frequent and differed more from the corresponding indicative forms. For this reason, they were either preserved longer or were at least noticed longer than other subjunctive forms. Today, it is generally assumed that the loss of the subjunctive occurred later for be, whose forms were still quite common at a time, when the subjunctive forms of other verbs had long been replaced by indicative forms, even in conditional and concessive clauses (Abbott 1966: 210, Brook 1976: 107, Söderlind 1951: 138). The analysis of the grammars yields a wide range of conjunctions which condition mood change (or "special forms"). These conjunctions are summarized in Table 43, even though some authors restrict their statements to the verb be only.

224

The sentence

a. bso 3

= I

I I

:&

Ο -S ^ ! ω α> - J O CM • CX > ; ΐΓ U : s

's

I f

5

Ο " ! Ο I ο ο = -S • S "1 — [ c: ^ Ο

ω

^

Ό

"

I

g 3

ο χ

I

= — ö u 'S ο • ^ ώϋ w >

ε

i r cd ο s§ · χ« Ο 2 = 5 fei) ο Cfl

ID Qi 5

" S*

•a §

3

, ·— L ι ι —
Ο α> > Ο u

Ε3 ? &£

ο

J

Ι

Ί

§

.2

«β

ε

I ü s . Ό ε a S Ι j s ϋ I s » « Ι ε g 3 μ § 8 3

Λ a ό S *

; υ« ^u

1 p sj Ο .Ο-

I

H

γ» Γ» &0 Ρ . öö

ä i l s ΐ ; ' sC s

s

3 «o .

3


>

•α s>

•Ε

§ & Ά

•s

υ ιυ Ο. οο Ο 'e-subjunctives before Number of subjunctives / ie-subjunctives when Number of subjunctives / ie-subjunctives (al)though Number of subjunctives / ie-subjunctives

3/1 (33%)

3/0 (0%)

0/0

7/2(29%)

8/2(25%)

2/2(100%)

1/0 (0%)

1/0 (0%)

1/0 (0%)

21/18 (86%)

42/29 (69%)

27/19 (70%)

233/135 (58%)

187/109 (58%)

161/125 (78%)

0/0

0/0

0/0

2/1 (50%)

0/0

1/0 (0%)

unless Number of subjunctives / fte-subjunctives provided Number of subjunctives / />e-sub]unctives

if Number of subjunctives / fte-subjunctives seeing that Number of subjunctives / Äe-subjunctives Number of subjunctives / fre-subjunctives

Government

235

Table 47 shows that for most conjunctions, the forms of be make up for at least half of the occurrences of the subjunctive. Only for when, ere, and in case are there periods without Z>e-subjunctives only which, however, is not surprising considering the low frequency of these conjunctions. The high rate of Z>e-subjunctives is due not only to the high frequency of this verb, but can also be explained by the fact that the subjunctive forms of be differ more strongly from the corresponding indicative forms than other verbs do, and were therefore more likely to be noticed as "deviating" forms, which led to their being more firmly rooted in the language use. It proved to be very difficult to come to a conclusive evaluation of the statements about the government of conjunctions found in the grammars. This is only partly due to the disagreement among the authors as regards firstly the conjunctions which trigger a change of mood (see Table 43), secondly, the mood required after these conjunctions (see Table 44), and, thirdly, the verb forms the authors actually refer to by "subjunctive" or "potential" (see Table 45). The evaluation is further complicated by the fact that there were changes under way in Early Modern English which concerned the government of conjunctions. Thus, in connection with the conjunctions whether and (although, subjunctives, indicatives, and constructions with modal expansion were almost equally acceptable in HE3. However, as the authors usually only list one mood, they only cover about one third of all instances. Another problem is that the descriptive model of an author may be inadequate, but still gives the correct form because of a number of intrinsic contradictions. This paradox is nicely illustrated by Poole's description: In his view, temporal and causal conjunctions like because, when, since require the subjunctive. Yet, starting out from the common understanding of the term "subjunctive", his statement must be refuted as there are only six examples of the subjunctive for these three conjunctions in the Helsinki Corpus throughout the entire period (1500-1710). They are clearly outnumbered by instances with the indicative. However, Poole's examples actually illustrate the use of indicative forms so that his statements are correct as regards the actual language use. Yet, since Poole closely follows the Latin system, his description cannot be accepted as an adequate account of Early Modern English, even though, by chance, it gives the correct forms. Due to the problems outlined so far, we shall no more than give a preliminary evaluation at this stage: It was demonstrated that conjunctions like i f , (although or unless, which most authors consider to occur with special

236

The sentence

verb forms, occur with the subjunctive in at least 30 per cent of all cases. Yet the rates of the indicative and the modal constructions continue to rise as well, so that the omission of these conjunctions from the relevant chapters in the Early Modern English grammars cannot automatically be considered a shortcoming, especially as the percentages of indicatives and modal constructions are at times higher than those of the subjunctive (e.g. for (al)though). Thus, even if two accounts contradict each other, they can still give equally adequate descriptions of the language use, since each of them covers one group of constructions, but neglects another. This situation results from the fact that the authors proceed too schematically and accept either the subjunctive or the potential, but disregard the coexistence of both constructions. Finally, the lasting influence of the Latin grammar tradition is also responsible for the confusing accounts: Several conjunctions are said to require the subjunctive in analogy to the Latin system, yet the authors actually refer to indicative forms. This represents a considerable approximation to the linguistic reality.

3.7

The sentence: An evaluation

In general, the authors of Early Modern English grammars were less aware of the sentence and phrase structure than they were of morphological issues. This is reflected by the fact that only about half of the authors include a separate syntax part in their grammars, with the authors in the tradition of Ramus, Gill excepted, paying even less attention to syntax than the followers of Lily (see also Kohonen 1978: 56). The neglect of syntactic aspects is due to the fact that syntax, in contrast to orthography, prosody, and morphology, traditionally was not considered to be part of the subject "grammar" and thus only received little attention. Moreover, the authors seem to be aware of the fact that it is impossible to adopt Latin syntax models. The minimal interest in the construction of the sentence is reflected in the neglect of basic aspects in most of the grammars. The sentence constituents, for instance, are for the first time outlined by Cooper (1685) and find their way only slowly into the English grammars. In this respect, the works after Cooper, i.e. Miege, Aickin, and Lane, do not reach the same level of descriptive adequacy as Cooper's. On the other hand, the different realization possibilities of the subject are already referred to in the pioneering work by Bullokar and occur later on in various

The sentence: An evaluation

237

other grammars (e.g. Jonson, Poole, Wallis, Lane). Yet, such statements are not part of the canon of syntactic topics. Regular word order, by contrast, is considered from the beginning of the period onwards, with Cooper's grammar also standing out in this respect. The authors break new ground, as they cannot profit from the Latin models. Their individual approaches are nicely illustrated by the discussion about the position of the adverb, where statements differ significantly. Cases of inversion are already found in the first grammars. Occasionally, the early grammars are more detailed than works which were published in the course of the seventeenth century. The inversion of subject and predicate in questions and commands is mentioned most of all, and zerointroduced conditional clauses occur also relatively often. The case of inversion after sentence-initial adverbs, on the other hand, is rarely discussed: Only Gill and Miege comment on this feature. As regards the complex sentence, a growing awareness can be witnessed in the course of the period, with the description by Lane (1700) by far exceeding earlier accounts. However, no continuous rise of the descriptive quality can be observed, as even the early authors Bullokar and Gill deal with some aspects of the complex sentence. Apart from some isolated comments in the grammars by Jonson, Poole, and Miege, this issue is widely neglected until the publication of Lane's work. The authors show more interest in the structure of individual constructions. Unusual realizations of the head in the noun phrase, for instance, are discussed rather often, especially adjectival heads. Expanded pronominal heads (the highest he, they of Rome, he who believes), however, only occur in Gill, Butler, and Jonson, i.e. in the grammars published between 1619 and 1640. The neglect of this construction can be explained by its low frequency in the Helsinki Corpus. In this respect, the descriptions by the contemporary authors, who mostly neglect or criticize them, are more accurate than modern accounts, in which expanded pronominal heads are considered to be a typical feature of Early Modern English. The descriptions of the expansion of nominal heads show close similarities throughout the grammars, especially with respect to the most frequent expansions (article, adjective) and the dominant pattern (D-A-N). The postposition of the adjective is already mentioned by the early grammarians, yet Wallis is the first to formulate rules for its occurrence, so that a progress seems to take place in the descriptive model. Wallis' observations are

238

The sentence

repeated by several later grammarians and can therefore be considered to be established by the end of the Early Modern English period. As far as the postmodification by a relative clause is concerned, no less than eight out of 16 grammarians attempt to postulate rules for the distribution of the relative pronouns. First traces can be found already in Bullokar's work. He is more detailed on this subject than some of the later authors. Strikingly enough, this topic is mostly not touched upon in the works published after 1670, even though the Present-Day English rules had already been established by that time. The most detailed account of relative constructions is found in Lane (1700), which means that the last grammar of the period investigated actually reaches the highest level of descriptive adequacy. The opposite holds for postmodifying prepositional phrases with of as an alternative for the inflected genitive: Gill (1619) makes the first attempt to formulate a distinction between the inflected and the analytic realization, yet his statements are not taken up by any of the later writers. As far as the structure of the verb phrase is concerned, it emerged that unusual realizations of the head are only occasionally noticed. The grammar by Miege stands out as it covers two aspects. As to the expansion of verbal heads, the majority of authors comment on different types of simple modification (do-periphrasis, present perfect, passive, modal, progressive expansion). When discussing the c/o-periphrasis, Gill (1619) already points out a difference in meaning between the simple and the complex syntagm. However, his fellow writers are slow to accept this finding, so that free variation of the two forms is postulated until the end of the period. The role of do for the formation of questions and negated declaratives is rarely mentioned in the Early Modern English grammars. Only in the late works by Miege (1688) and Lane (1700) are there corresponding statements, with Lane still considering the expansion to be facultative. For the perfect, Butler and Miege and, with some reservations, also Gill and Poole proved to be acute observers of the English language, as they include the perfect with be for mutative verbs. With respect to the use of the passive, Lane's description is most comprehensive: Even though the passive is dealt with in all . grammars but Miege's, Lane is the only one to include features typical of the English language, as for instance the indirect passive. Finally, modal constructions are also often mentioned in the grammars, with shall and will being most frequent because of their function in future formation. As to the use of the two auxiliaries, first traces of distributional

The sentence: An evaluation

239

patterns are found in Gill. From Wallis onwards, the rules can be considered to be firmly established, even though the descriptions differ slightly. Compared to the extensive comments on the passive and the modal constructions, the progressive as a typically English form is largely neglected by the authors. It only occurs in five out of 16 grammars, which might be due to the fact that there is no such form in the Latin models. In this respect, the grammar by Cooper (1685) represents a milestone. In contrast to simple expansion, multiple expansion of the verbal head is rarely discussed. In this respect, the decriptions by Lane and Lye are most accurate. In fact, the Early Modern English grammarians list all the combinations that are documented in the Helsinki Corpus, with the number of mentions closely corresponding to the frequency of occurrences. The domain of concord turned out to be most strongly influenced by the Latin system. Several authors do not comment on concord rules at all and thus omit the concord between subject and predicate as well. Yet there are still some grammarians (Bullokar, Greaves, Gill, Poole, Lane) who postulate concord between noun and adjective or between relative pronoun and antecedent. When dealing with noun-adjective concord, it was shown that all authors, with the exception of Poole, make a number of modifications so that their statements are largely adequate for the English language. For all the other types of concord, however, these grammars have to be evaluated as inadequate, while the neglect of these concord rules in the remaining grammars has to be given extra credit. The field of government presents itself as rather heterogeneous. As regards prepositions and the "cases" they require, it could already be shown for nominal case (see 2.2.2.2) that there are some progressive descriptions which grant the English language two cases only. Yet these findings are very slow to make their way into the grammarians' minds so that some of the earlier grammars prove to be more reliable sources than later works. As to the conjunctions and the moods they require, the Early Modern English period is marked by change and instability, which makes it impossible to come to a final evaluation that accounts for all the conjunctions mentioned in our grammars. This also makes it difficult to judge the descriptive adequacy, as most grammars contain comments which cover some aspects, but never the full spectrum of language use. Compared to the field of morphology, plagiarism plays a minor role in the syntax descriptions, as there was no accepted descriptive model. Only some Latin rules of concord or government find their way into the Early Modern English grammars. In fact, it appears that the grammarians prefer

240

The sentence

to set up their own models instead of relying on the unconfirmed statements of their predecessors. Several authors, however, choose to neglect syntax altogether. The present study could show that the Early Modern English grammarians formulate a number of accurate statements on the subject of the English sentence. Various corpus analyses proved that the statements by the contemporary authors match the linguistic reality in some instances better than those by modern scholars (e.g. for expanded pronominal heads). These cases require further analyses with other corpora in order to check whether specific phenomena have been overrated in the past and were thus passed on among the scholars without closer examination. It also became clear in the course of this study that the degree of descriptive adequacy in syntactic matters does not correlate with the publication dates of the grammars. Thus, it emerged that early grammarians, in particular Bullokar, analysed with great care and accuracy, while later authors tended to neglect syntactic aspects and disregarded the findings of their predecessors. Lane's grammar Key to the Art of Letters from 1700 contains a truly comprehensive account of the English sentence and can therefore justly be considered as the culminating point of grammar writing in the Early Modern English period, even though in the earlier grammars there is no continuous progress to be witnessed.

Chapter 4 Results and outlook

The analysis of the descriptive adequacy of Early Modern English grammars has shown significant differences between the coverage of morphology on the one hand, and the discussion of syntax on the other. The insights gained in both fields will be presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. They are followed by an outlook on further research topics (Section 4.3)

4.1

Morphology

4.1.1

Word class models

As to the description of the word classes (see 2.1) most authors are influenced by the classical systems of Lily and Ramus. Only two grammarians follow the models by Wilkins or the Port-Royal school (Cooper and Lane respectively). The grammars in the Ramus-tradition (Greaves, Hume, Gill, Butler, and Jonson) were shown to form a compact block. They were all published in the years between 1594 and 1640, with no grammar of a different tradition intervening. With the exception of Greaves, all authors modify Ramus' system. These changes mostly concern the grouping of the parts of speech. Yet Ramus' system is always evident as the underlying model. Lily's model is also adopted by several authors, yet they modify it to a greater or lesser extent. Already the first author, Bullokar, makes a number of modifications that were supposed to enable the transfer of Lily's structural principle of inflected and non-inflected word classes to the English language. However, this awareness of typically English phenomena is not characteristic of all Early Modern English authors, so that until late into the seventeenth century, there are grammars (Poole, Aickin) which repeat Lily's model with no further changes. Cooper's grammar differs from the other works in that it is based on Wilkins' universal grammar, which, in turn, is influenced by the Aristotelian model. However, the impact of Wilkins' grammar on Early Modern

242

Results and outlook

English grammar writing can be neglected, as Cooper's work is the only one influenced by it. Lane's grammar differs from the other works because it shows traces of the Port-Royal grammar. Like the Port-Royal grammarians, Lane distinguishes four parts of speech. This includes re-structuring of traditional word classes like the pronouns, which isolates him from the other Early Modern English grammarians. Interestingly enough, though, the decision for a specific model does not prevent the authors from copying from their predecessors. The Lilyan Wharton, for instance, takes over large passages from the Rameian Butler. Aickin, who also stands in the Lilyan tradition, adopts the statements by Cooper, even though the latter is influenced by the theoretical model of Wilkins. It is therefore quite possible that the decision of the authors for one model or the other represents a mere "question of faith". The choice of a word class model does not prevent them from copying statements from "dissenters", if they are considered to be correct.

4.1.2

The parts of speech

Independently of the underlying word class model, all the grammars investigated contain traces of the Latin system. The Latin systems of cases and moods, for instance, are found until the end of the period. The influence of the Latin system can be explained by the fact that the Early Modern English authors aimed at facilitating access to the Latin language for pupils. Moreover, the grammarians were convinced that the application of the Latin system to the English language would raise the prestige of the vernacular (Robins 1986: 297). Finally, the method of grammatical analysis at the time consisted in matching the structure of the vernacular to Latin categories, which were considered to be universal. Therefore, the beginning of the history of grammar-writing is at the same time the history of the authors' attempts to mould the vernacular after the Latin model - or to free themselves from its yoke (Enkvist 1975: 294). However, even the earliest Early Modern English grammars contain a number of modifications in order to adapt the Latin system to the English language. This reflects an early awareness of morphological differences between Latin and English. Examples are the reduction of the number of cases and moods or the statements on the invariability of the English adjective and participle. Nevertheless, the Early Modern English authors usually

Morphology

243

take the Latin descriptive model as a basis and list adjectives and participles under the declinable parts of speech accordingly, even if this contradicts their earlier statements. This discrepancy between an inadequate descriptive apparatus, on the one hand, and descriptively adequate accounts of forms, structure, and usage, on the other hand, is characteristic of the majority of Early Modern English grammars. Despite several positive innovations, it can by no means be assumed that the descriptive quality of the contemporary grammars improved continuously throughout the period under investigation. This is illustrated by the statements concerning the case system. As early as in Bullokar's (1586) grammar, there are indications that the English language distinguishes only two morphological cases. However, the first author to explicitly comment on this feature is Butler (1634). Both Bullokar and Butler include prepositional phrases as case equivalents in their grammars. Yet this rather modern view does not gain general acceptance, as several conservative authors use the Latin system and consider the case equivalents as "real" cases. Miege (1688) is the first to reject such equivalents, thus giving the first adequate account of the English case system. However, this observation was disregarded by the authors after Miege, Aickin, and Lane.

4.1.3

The impact of plagiarism

The ups and downs on the scale of descriptive adequacy are not only typical of the case system, but are characteristic of most aspects dealt with in the Early Modern English grammars. Only for the invariable word classes preposition, conjunction, and interjection do we get a more homogeneous picture. The unsteady development of the descriptive quality is due not only to the lasting influence of the Latin system, but also to the practice of plagiarism resulting in the survival of inadequate statements over decades, even though other authors had formulated better descriptions in the meantime. In this context, the works by Wharton and Newton are negative examples. They are both strongly influenced by Butler and can hardly be accepted as autonomous works. Another copyist is Aickin, who profits from Cooper's Grammatica Ungues anglicance. Aickin mostly translates the passages into English without critically assessing them.

244

Results and outlook

Moreover, there are parallels between the grammars by Gill and Butler and between Wallis and Cooper. Yet the parallels weigh less heavily in these cases, as for the main part the later authors work more or less autonomously and produce substantial descriptions of the English language. When checking correspondences between the grammars, significant parallels between Butler (1634) and Jonson (publication date 1640) became obvious, with Jonson apparently being the copyist (see Section 2.11). This raises doubts as to the dating of Jonson's grammar to the year 1632.

4.1.4

Results from the Helsinki Corpus

In order to come to a conclusive evaluation of the descriptive adequacy of the morphological remarks, the grammars were checked for the criteria completeness, descriptive model, and coherence of the statements. Moreover, the remarks were compared with those of other contemporary authors as well as with the statements found in the modern secondary literature. Since the authors disagreed in their evaluation of several phenomena, the Helsinki Corpus was checked to get further information and to be able to come to a conclusion about the descriptive adequacy of the statements in question. Contradictory remarks concerned the double comparative, the hisgenitive, the demonstrative yon(der), the relative pronoun the which, and the personal pronoun ye. All phenomena but ye are considered to be characteristic features of Early Modern English by modern scholars. Contemporary authors, by contrast, either neglect these forms or criticize them as obsolete. The analysis of the Helsinki Corpus showed that the double comparative as well as the Αώ-genitive and the pronoun yon(der) are relatively rare, so that their omission or criticism in the Early Modern English grammars can be considered appropriate. The same holds for the relative pronoun the which, which is disregarded by all contemporary authors with the exception of Butler and Jonson. In this case, our corpus analysis could show that the incidence begins to decline in HE2, while in HE3, i.e. after 1640, no occurrence was found at all. Thus, the data confirm the statements made by the contemporary authors, while they do not support the hypothesis that the which survived until the nineteenth century.

Morphology

245

As regards the use of the personal pronoun ye, however, the corpus analysis showed that the descriptions by Early Modern English grammarians lag behind the linguistic reality. The form ye is still mentioned in Lane, the last grammar of the period, while it rarely occurs in the corpus and, if so, it seems to be conditioned by personal preferences. The inclusion of this form in the grammar by Lane might result from the wish to establish symmetrical systems similar to those of Latin. Finally, we checked the inventory and the frequency of the impersonal verbs and subsequently compared the results to the statements of the Early Modern English authors. The analysis proved that the authors have more or less correct ideas about the inventory of the impersonal verbs current at the time. However, there is a discrepancy between the number of mentions in the grammars and the frequencies in the corpus: Occasionally, verbs which are often documented in the corpus are mentioned less often by the Early Modern English grammarians than verbs which rarely occur in the corpus.

4.1.5

Conclusive

evaluation

For the word classes, the grammars by Butler (1634), Wallis (1653), Cooper (1685), and Miege (1688) are most adequate. Even though their works are also influenced by the classical models, the authors make a large number of modifications and include specific statements referring to English, so that their grammars represent a step towards a descriptively adequate model. Several authors are aware of the problems occurring when applying the Latin model to English, as can be seen from Wallis' remark: "Tota nemp Nominis Syntaxi Praspositionum fere auxilio prasstita, & Verborum Conjugatione facili Auxiliarum ope peracta, illud levissimo negotio peragitur, quod in aliis linguis ingentem solet afferre molestiam. Sunt quidem & apud Latinos nonnulla tarn Substantiva quam Adjectiva quae Aptota sunt & plane Indeclinabilia, ut pondo, nihil, instar ... quae tamen ad aliorum imitationem, Genera & Casus habere Supponuntur, per Casus omnes omniaq; Genera, invariata prorsus maneant: At vero, si eorum Substantiva omnia Aptota essent, & Adjectiva plane indeclinibilia, certo certius de Casibus & Generibus Nominum omnino altum fiiisset silentium, & magna simul eorum pars, quae de Nominum Syntaxi jam necessario traduntur, nusquam conspiceretur" (Prasfatio Ad Lectorem) ["The whole syntax of the noun depends almost entirely on the use of prepositions, and the conjugation of verbs is easily managed with the help of auxiliaries, so that what usually

246

Results and outlook

causes a great deal of difficulty in other languages, gives us no trouble at all. In Latin there are some substantives and adjectives which have no cases and are wholly indeclinable, for instancepondo, nihil, instar (...) though it is assumed, on the analogy of the others, that they have genders and cases, in all of which they remain completely invariable in form. But if none of the Latin substantives had cases and the adjectives were indeclinable, nothing would have been said about cases and genders of nouns at all, and much of the existing description of the syntax of the noun would be entirely unnecessary", trans. Kemp 1972: 111-113],

Yet the authors still decide to adopt both the model and the Latin terminology, as both is known to their readership, so that they can avoid the introduction of confusing innovations in this field: "Recepta tamen apud Latinos artis vocabula, quanquam lingua- nostra; non usquequaq; accomodata, retinenda censui, partim quod significationis jam notas sint, partim etiam quod nollem prater necessitatem quidpiam innovare." (Wallis, Prafatio Ad Lectorem) ["Nevertheless I thought I had better kept the Latin terminology normally used in this Art, even though it is not entirely suited to our language; I do this partly because the meaning of it is well known, and partly also through an unwillingness to make any unnecessary innovations", trans. Kemp 1972: 113],

Vorlat (1975: 423), after investigating the statements concerned with the word classes, even claims that Wallis is the only author who produces "a sustained scientific description of English". Yet our own analysis suggests that Wallis has to share this merit with his disciple Cooper and (partly) also with Butler and Miege. Against this background, Vorlat's evaluation that Miege is "completely in the old tradition" and "out of touch with the English grammatical tradition" (Vorlat 1975: 427, 434) needs to be revised. Enkvist (1975: 294) additionally grants Bullokar, Greaves, Hume, Gill and others the merit to have prepared the ground for Wallis' revolutionary grammar. In the Bref Grammar by Bullokar (1586), numerous remarks about typically English phenomena can be found, even though in general the work is heavily indebted to the Latin model. Yet Bullokar comments on central aspects such as the case system or the invariability of adjectives and participles. Thus, Vorlat's judgment that Bullokar (just like Greaves) makes "some apt remarks about their mother tongue, even though it must be ad-

Syntax

247

mitted that these remarks often do not concern major points" (1975: 424) has to be revised as regards Bullokar, especially as some of the later authors cannot compare to his achievements.

4.2

Syntax

The authors are much less interested in syntax. Corresponding statements are clearly less frequent than those concerning the word classes. Many authors leave out the syntactic issues altogether, which might be a result of the absence of an accepted descriptive model. Only about half of the grammars contains a separate syntax part, while in the other works remarks on syntax occur more or less haphazardly in the chapters on the word classes.

4.2.1

Syntactic decriptions in Early Modern English grammars

For a long time, the level of the sentence was only sporadically considered. The first grammar to systematically deal in detail with aspects of the sentence and its parts is Cooper's Grammatica linguce Anglicance published in 1685. Among the authors after Cooper, Lane is the only one to discuss the sentence at length. While the merits of Cooper's grammar lie in the systematic description of the components of the sentence and of the progressive, Lane's work represents a milestone with respect to the complex sentence, especially the relative clause, and the complex verb phrase (passive and phrases with more than one expansion). Indeed, Lane's grammar represents the culmination point of an evolution towards a more adequate description of Early Modern English. The judgment that "Lane clung fairly close to the system of traditional Latin grammar" (Brekle 1975: 311) has thus to be revised. At best, it applies to Lane's description of the parts of speech, even though he was not among the authors who followed the models by Lily or Ramus, but chose a different approach under the influence of the Port-Royal grammar. On the whole, the analysis confirms the thesis that grammatical properties specific to English are only considered from Dryden's time onwards (Görlach 1985: 36). Yet, there were several early grammarians with a surprising awareness of typically English constructions. For this reason, if the development of more adequate descriptions were to be visualized, a wave-

248

Results and outlook

like graph with various ups and downs once more would seem more appropriate than a line steadily winding upwards. The most important grammar among the early works is Gill's Logonomia Anglica (1619). Gill is the first author who comments on the functional difference between the simple syntagm and the ί/ο-periphrasis. Furthermore, his grammar is the first to hint at the different connotations of the future forms with shall and will. Finally, Gill formulates distribution patterns for the use of the inflected and the analytic genitive. Yet the positive impression is weakened by the fact that Gill rigorously follows the structure of Latin grammar and therefore also includes some "rules" which have became obsolete in English long before his time (e.g. some rules of concord). Generally, Gill's grammar can undoubtedly be considered the "first really notable English grammar in the proper sense of the term" (Kittredge 1903: 5) and "a landmark in grammar writing" (Vorlat 1975: 425), nevertheless, the strong impact of Latin as regards the language system must not be overlooked. Apart from Gill's work, Wallis' Grammatica is prominent in that Gill's statements concerning the use of the ί/ο-periphrasis and the auxiliaries shall and will are explained in more detail. Wallis is also the first to formulate rules for word order in the noun phrase. Finally, the work by Bullokar also covers a large number of syntactic aspects, which is surprising considering the fact that Bullokar wrote his grammar relatively early and could not rely on any works by previous authors. Bullokar is the first author to lay down rules for the distribution of the relative pronouns, an aspect which is not referred to in many of the later grammars. Moreover, his Bref Grammar deals with several cases of inversion and in this respect also exceeds the quality of later works. Bullokar often manages to break with the Latin tradition and includes a number of comments referring to special features of English. The results of our analysis thus contradict the evaluation that Bullokar's work represents only a "mere sketch" (Percival 1975: 250) or a "first step, but little more" (Vorlat 1975: 429), nor do they confirm the statement that his work is merely a loan translation of Lily's Latin grammar (Vorlat 1975: 22, Graband 1965: 12, Padley 1988: 230-231). Funke (1938b: 135, 1941: 25) comes to a similar conclusion and considers Bullokar's achievements to be significant, so that his grammar should not be judged too narrow-mindedly, although the author occasionally tries to mould the English language after the Latin model. Algeo also points out Bullokar's merits: "Considering its brevity, Bullokar's work is remarkable for the scope and depth of its treatment of

Syntax

249

English. It is a worthy beginning for our earliest grammars" (1985: 194). In addition, Algeo draws our attention to the generally critical attitude of the grammar pioneers: "The earliest English grammars contain plenty of evidence of independent critical thought on the part of the grammarians" (1985: 191-192). On the whole, the statements found in the Early Modern English grammars proved to be more reliable with respect to syntax than with respect to the parts of speech. In the field of syntax, the influence of the Latin grammar tradition is less marked and the grammarians had more freedom to develop their own approaches.

4.2.2

Results from the Helsinki Corpus

When evaluating the descriptive adequacy of the syntactic statements, the focus, once again, was on completeness, descriptive model, and coherence. In a second step, the statements of the contemporary authors were compared and then related to the findings of modern scholars. Wherever the views differed, the statements were checked against the Helsinki Corpus in order to come to an evaluation of their descriptive adequacy. In connection with word order, the frequency of two inversion patterns was checked. As to the inversion of subject and predicate in zerointroduced conditional clauses, the corpus data showed an increase of these constructions in the course of the Early Modern English period, which should have induced later authors to include corresponding remarks in their works. However, only Bullokar, Gill, Jonson, Wallis, Cooper, Miege, and Aickin comment on the phenomenon so that their works are to be evaluated positively. The second pattern, the inversion after sentence-initial adverbs, represents a more complex issue. While this construction is frequently referred to in modern secondary literature, Gill and Miege are the only contemporary grammarians to mention it in their works, yet they list significantly fewer adverbs than modern scholars do. The analysis of the Helsinki Corpus has shown that for non-restrictive adverbs, word order is kept in the majority of cases as early as in the first sub-period (1500-1570), therefore their neglect in the contemporary grammars is less serious. The situation is different for restrictive adverbs: In most cases, they triggered the inversion of subject and predicate so that it would be appropriate to find this construction in more grammars. Therefore the works by Gill and Miege are to be valued most highly in this respect.

250

Results and outlook

Modern descriptions and contemporary grammars of Early Modern English also differ in their evaluation of the role of expanded pronominal heads. While modern scholars consider them to be typical of Early Modern English, the contemporary authors themselves only occasionally comment on these constructions, which are at times even described as "ill syntax". The corpus analysis showed that premodified phrases like the highest he do not occur in the Early Modern English part of the Helsinki Corpus. Phrases postmodified by a prepositional phrase or a relative clause are documented, yet they are rare and seem to be restricted to certain registers. In this case, the contemporary grammars give a more adequate picture of the language use than modern accounts. When dealing with the verb phrase, heads with more than one expansion were of special interest. With the help of the corpus, it was shown that especially the grammars by Lye and Lane provide an accurate account of the language use of their time, as they list most of the expansion types documented in the corpus. In general, the number of mentions in the grammars largely corresponds to the frequency of the construction in the Helsinki Corpus. The conjunctions and the mood they require were dealt with in greater detail. Yet a final evaluation of the descriptive adequacy of the grammars could not be achieved: The government of conjunctions was subject to numerous changes in Early Modern English so that the conjunctions could be used with different moods. This, however, was inconceivable for the grammarians, who mostly limited themselves to one mood only and thus only covered some constructions but not all. Moreover, it occasionally happened that an author made incorrect statements concerning the language system, but still gave the correct verb form despite a large number of inherent contradictions. In these cases especially, it is difficult to assess the descriptive adequacy.

4.2.3

Conclusive evaluation

As for the field of morphology, there is no steady progress towards more descriptive adequacy to be witnessed as regards the Early Modern English statements about syntax. Yet, the level of descriptive adequacy is higher towards the end of the Early Modern English period than it was at its beginning.

Outlook

251

Bullokar, the pioneer in English grammar writing, comments on several syntactic aspects, including special features of English, such as the distribution of the relative pronouns or various cases of inversion. The (1619) grammar by Gill also has to be positively evaluated despite the fact that Gill cannot break with the Latin tradition. Gill covers for instance the functional difference between the simple syntagm and the doperiphrasis or the distribution patterns of the future forms with shall and will om the ome hamd and of the inflected and the analytic genitive on the other. Some of Gill's statements (e.g. shall and will or the Jo-periphrasis) are commented on in greater detail by Wallis in his (1653) Grammatica. A milestone in the description of English syntax is Cooper's Grammatica linguce Anglicance published in 1685. After him, Lane is the only one to discuss the sentence in detail. In terms of descriptive adequacy of the Early Modern English grammars, it could be shown that the contemporary grammarians occasionally give a more reliable description of their language than modern scholars do (e.g. for expanded pronominal heads).

4.3

Outlook

The claim that contemporary accounts in some respects revealed themselves to be more adequate than modern descriptions will have to be tested with the help of other diachronic corpora (e.g. Corpus of Early English Correspondence, Corpus of Early English Medical Writing) and more recent versions of the Helsinki Corpus. Yet this result raises the question whether it might not be appropriate to modify some of the existing statements concerning "the Early Modern English language" considering that some significant linguistic changes took place towards the middle of this period. They concern the use of the relative pronouns, the introduction of its, the spread of the o/-genitive, the distributional rules for will and shall. A number of corpus analyses revealed that considerable changes were under way in the second sub-period (1570-1640), which might be linked to the numerous social changes of the time, as for instance urbanization and migration, diversification of the economy, commercialization of the agriculture, and improved possibilities of communication and education (Raumolin-Brunberg and Nevalainen 1994). Thus, it is possible that constructions which were well established at the beginning of the Early Modern

252

Results and outlook

English period had become rare by the end of this period. It therefore seems advisable to subdivide the time span of roughly 200 years referred to as "Early Modern English" into shorter intervals. This would allow for more accurate statements about the frequency of individual phenomena in the respective sub-periods, especially since more specific analyses can easily be carried out with the electronic corpora available today. With respect to the descriptive adequacy of the Early Modern English grammars, various developments on the level of both syntax and parts of speech emerged. Even though the developments are always interrupted by retrograde descriptions, the level of descriptive adequacy is still higher at the end of the Early Modern English period than it was at the beginning. For this reason, Vorlat's comment with regard to the parts of speech, "the history of English grammar writing in the period 1586-1737 is rather disappointing" (1975: 420) should be qualified considering the rising level of descriptive adequacy and the numerous correct observations about typically English features. Furthermore, it has to be taken into consideration that the Early Modern English grammarians had to establish the tradition of English grammar writing; they could not rely on previous models. In view of the fact that most of the authors were not specialists, but soldiers, clergymen or writers who pursued the description of the English language as a pastime, the progress achieved in the course of the Early Modern English period is astounding, even though the insights gained by the individual authors were not immediately accepted by their contemporaries. Michael's claim that the late Early Modern English grammars are characterized by "conformity with the Latin tradition or a (very modest) revolt against it" (1970: 198) can partly be explained by the fact that he bases his study on the level of the language system only, where the Latin model admittedly dominated throughout the Early Modern English period. Yet, if the large number of accurate statements on distribution and usage made throughout the Early Modern English grammars is taken into account, it becomes clear that since the beginning of English grammar writing the authors developed a growing awareness of typically English features, but had no adequate model at hand to describe them. It took considerable time to solve this problem. According to Ryden (1979: 25), the first truly scientific grammar was not to be published until the end of the nineteenth century, when Henry Sweet wrote his New English Grammar (1891-98). In view of this long developmental period, the progress made by the Early Modern English authors is to be evaluated even more highly.

Notes

1.

E.g. Gill: "Quemadmodu in moribus bonorum consensus, sic in sermone consuetudo doctoru. primaria lex est" (Praefatio) ["in morals the agreement of good men, and in language the practice of the learned, is the determining rule", trans. Danielsson and Gabrielson 1972: 87], 2. For comprehensive descriptions of the cultural and historical background see e.g. Görlach (1991), Barber (1997), Baugh and Cable ([1935] 2002), Curtis ([1948] 1967), Charlton (1965), Fisher (1977), Jones ([1953] 1966), Knorrek (1938), Percival (1975), Strang (1970), Blake (1996, chapter 7), Foster (1953), Moore ([1910] 1973), Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 31-43). 3. R.C. Alston. English Linguistics 1500-1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited, 1967-1972. In quotes, the spelling (including diacritic sign such as accents) and capitalization of the Early Modern English texts is kept with the exception of quotes from the works of Bullokar, Gill, and Butler. Their complicated notation systems based on pronunciation were not taken over as they were irrelevant to this study. 4. Apart from the studies mentioned in the text and in the notes, the following works were used: Vorlat (1975: 11-20, 28-34, 440-453), Alston (1974, 1: 2 12), Graband (1965: 11-37), Michael (1970). 5. Görlach (1991: 54) gives the years 1530 and 1609. 6. The Pamphlet consists of four pages. In the copy of the Bodleiana it is between the pages 66 and 67 of the Bref Grammar due to a mistake of the bookbinder. According to the subtitle it is part of a "Grammar-at-large" which Bullokar often refers to. However, there is no copy that proves its existence and whether it ever existed is doubtful. The autonomous character of the Pamphlet has also been discussed controversially (see Alston 1974, 1: 2). 7. See Danielsson and Gabrielson (1972, 2: 9-10). - Graband (1965) gives the dates February 7, 1565 and November 17, 1635. 8. For the "inkhorn controversy" see Jones (1966), Barber (1997: 56-70), Baugh and Cable (2002: 214-220). 9. In this study, quotes are taken from the (1621) edition, which has been published as a facsimile edition by Alston. Passages that differ from the (1619) edition (by Danielsson and Gabrielson 1972) are indicated where necessary. 10. The first edition of 1633 was not available. 11. Jones (1966: 286, footnote 37), however, believes that it was written in 1623. 12. See introduction to William Lily and John Colet. A Short Introduction Of Grammar 1549. Menston: The Scholar Press Ltd., 1970.

254

Notes

13. According to Michael, Lane, whose word class model might be influenced by the Port-Royal grammar, can be considered to be a precursor of Fries (The Structure of English, New York 1952) (Michael 1970: 510, 516). 14. Michael's study (1970: 208) showed that the 275 word class models published until 1800 can be assigned to 56 different systems with 28 systems being favoured by one author only. 15. As there are some pages missing in the only extant copy of the first edition, the quotes are taken from the corresponding passages of the 1557 edition (see appendix I of the facsimile edition). 16. Bullokar once more starts out from the graphic realization and chooses the example straw (p.8). 17. Kemp (1972: 281) considers Wallis to be the first author who emphasizes the marginal character of {-en} (Wallis p.70). Actually, this is Butler's merit (Butler, p.34). 18. Dwarfe occurs in Jonson's grammar with the plural dwarfes among the substantives with /z/ (p.59). In his literary works, the plural is occasionally spelt with , which is an indicator of its voiced pronunciation (Partridge 1953: 37-40). 19. For the use of synthetic and analytic genitive see 3.3.3.2. 20. According to Partridge (1953: 67), there seems to be general agreement with respect to this conventionalised gender assignment as can be seen from a comparison of the works by Jonson and Shakespeare. According to Franz (1939: 199), however, Shakespeare and Jonson only used the same gender for 40 out of 70 substantives. Franz explains this with Shakespeare's preference for male personifications, while the more educated Jonson is guided by the etymon of the word. 21. Judge, however, occurs among the masculine substantives, which might be due to the fact that there were no female judges at that time. Horse is considered as "pure" masculine substantive with the corresponding feminine form mare. 22. / and thou are mentioned in the first chapter in connection with the category "person" (p.27), while the pronouns of the 3rd person are found in the chapter "Of the Gender of a Noun" (p.28) as markers of the genders. Some other pronoun types are only mentioned in passing: the relative pronoun quhom occurs in the context of the postmodification of substantives, whereas thee, the only oblique form in Hume's grammar, is found in the chapter on adverbs (pp.3233) and is contrasted with the definite article the. 23. This is one of the few occasions where Wharton does not follow his examplar Butler. As often before, this is disadvantageous for his description: Butler is more progressive, since he points out the parallels between the English and

Notes

24.

25. 26. 27.

28.

29.

255

the Latin systems (p.40), and at the same time stresses that the English pronoun has only two cases (p.39). In the Latin translation of the example "you know, Thomas, who, under the cloak of Religion deluded so many, he is now in the plot" qui (for who) and ille (for he) are considered as relativa since both substitute Thomas (p. 120). This shows that the personal pronoun can belong to the personalia or the relativa depending on its use. Bullokar favours the introduction of a plural form whoses (p. 12), while Wallis considers who's to be the correct spelling (p.87). Occasionally, the authors also mention the present perfect with be. These statements are taken up when dealing with the verb phrase (see 3.4.2.2). In contrast to Gill's model outlined above, however, Butler's classification includes the formation with {-ed} as well as first steps towards a distribution pattern for the variants. Butler's description serves as a model for Wharton. The parallels in the chapter on verbs are so numerous that in the following, only the differences will be pointed out, while in all other cases, the comments referring to Butler's grammar also apply to Wharton's. Conjugation 1: Identical forms for simple past and past participle (drinkdrunk-drunk, p. 106), yet there also exists an alternative simple past form (drank) and a second past participle in {-en} (drunken). In most cases there are also regular variants and irregular alternative forms (swimmed, p. 107); Conjugation 2: Identical forms for simple past and past participle (teachtaught-taught), however, there often exists a regular simple past (teached, p. 107); Conjugation 3: Identical forms for simple past and past participle (bear-bore-bore, p. 107), yet there are often alternative forms in the preterite (bare) and another participle in {-en} (born) as well as regular forms (beared, p. 108); Conjugation 4: Simple past and past participle mostly have different forms (bid-bade-bidden, p. 108), occasionally, however, they are identical with the base form (bid-bid-bid). According to Wallis some verbs of conjugations 1 and 3 can also be put into this conjugation; Conjugation 5: Simple past and past participle are different (snow-snew-snow'n, p. 108), yet there also exist regular variants (snowed). According to Visser (1963-1973, 4: 2036) the last element in constructions of the type I might loved (which are mentioned by Bullokar und Lane even though they were already becoming obsolete, see 3.4.2.4) can be considered as an infinitive: "In the cluster of the type Ί shall (would, might, etc.) laughed' the final verb form might be said to be used infinitively. ... So little did grammarians at the time grumble at this idiom that they did not scruple to give the form to had a place in the paradigm in their grammars".

256

Notes

30. Moessner (1985: 33) refers to them as "pseudo-impersonal constructions" as apart from it there is another referent (infinitive construction, nominal relative clause or conditional clause) in the sentence. 31. The corresponding personal construction would be he came to understand. This construction is first found in Foxe in the second half of the sixteenth century {OED, s.v. come vb. III.24b). 32. e.g. so it concludes, that good men have all thinges to rule (HE2 PHILO BOETHEL 94). 33. e.g. it will contribute much to thy Cure to know these things (HE3 PHILO BOETHPR 191). 34. e.g. it fell (out) that... The corresponding personal construction would be the feaste of Saynt Anyan fell to be the same time at Orleaunce {OED, s.v. fall vb. VIII.47, 1450-1530). 35. The page numbers refer to the English version of Ramus' Latin grammar (1585). 36. See small page numbers of the folio inserted in Henry B. Wheatley's edition (1965: 27-34). 37. It is true that Bullokar (pp.48-49) discussed the role of the preposition in compounds before Butler and Jonson, yet he was referring to prepositions only, while Butler and Jonson included any prefix. 38. The correspondences between the two works were already mentioned very early by Funke (1940: 119), however, he did not question the dating of the grammar. The same applies to Herford and Simpson who explicitly consider Butler's grammar as one of Jonson's models (1954-1963: 2, 418). 39. See Alston's preface of the facsimile edition, Nevalainen and RaumolinBrunberg (1996c: 181), Lehnert (1958: 25). By contrast, Brekle (1975: 308, footnote 62) claims that the grammar was written in the 1620s. 40. Concessive clauses with though were included in the analysis as these are mentioned in Gill. Yet no occurrence without an introductory element could be found. The zero-introduced subclauses were all conditional clauses without i f . However, for concessive clauses with though the following results were obtained (absolute numbers): had 4/5/9, total 18; were 10/4/12, total 26; could 0/1/4, total 5; should 3/0/1, total 4. 41. The figures presented here occasionally differ from those in Kytö and Rissanen, as the analyses are based on different versions of the Helsinki Corpus (provisional version from 1990 and 1993 version respectively). Moreover, Kytö and Rissanen exclude sentences where the adverb is followed by an interposed clause or where there is another negative element in the sentence (Kytö and Rissanen 1993: 265-266, note 8). 42. However, this hypothesis does not explain why there are similar constructions in other Germanic languages such as German or Swedish, even though the in-

Notes

43. 44. 45.

46.

47. 48. 49.

257

fluence of French was less strong in these languages. This suggests universal changes rather than contact phenomena. I thank Professor Moessner who drew my attention to this early example. Yet Howell later on distinguishes the tenses "Preterimperfect" (do teach) and "Aorist or preterperfect" (taught) without further explanation (pp.66, 68). In her recent study, Moessner (1997a: 360) quotes examples for the getpassive dating from the sixteenth century. The OED (s.v. get v. 34) and Jespersen (1909-1949, 4: 108) attribute the first instances to 1625 and 1652. Kriiger's (1917: §2162) example of an earlier occurrence, no mass was being said, can not be accepted as it is not taken from the Calendar of Spanish State Papers (1555-1567), but from a later translation (Visser 1963-1973, 4: 2426). Other supposedly older instances mentioned in secondary literature have been refuted by Mosse (1938: 149). Blake dates the emergence of this form to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries ("the progressive is found with all tenses both active and passive", 1996: 222) without giving any quotes. Earlier occurrences referred to by Knorrek (1938) could not be confirmed either. There is actually one example with progressive and passive expansions in the second subperiod of the Helsinki Corpus (1570-1640): "Also in what Coast or part of heauen, the Sunne, Moone, or any other starre is at any time being mounted aboue the Horizon, as whether it bee Southeast or Northeast, or in any other rombe", HE2 SCIO BLUNDEV 155R (Elsness 1994: 15). However, the context makes clear that we are not dealing with the transitive verb mount, but with the intransitive counterpart with the obsolete meaning "to move towards culmination" (OED, s.v. mount vb. I.lc). This is supported by the fact that the OED quote for this entry stems from Blundevil (1594) as well and deals with a similar subject: "in a right Spheare the star called Cor Leonis, ... riseth, mounteth, and setteth with the 145 degree 30' of the Equinoctiall" (Exerc. IV. xxxii. (1636) 488). Thus, the occurrence in the Helsinki Corpus is actually an incorrect example of type BC (has been mounting), in which the present and the past participle were confused with the present perfect being formed with be. Poole subsumes under the notion adjective different premodifiers, e.g. adjectives, participles, possessive pronouns, etc. (p.5). Gill points out that the pronouns who, which, and that in relative use are treated like nouns (p.75) without further commenting on the issue. Occasionally, there are also subjunctives for verbs other than be in the grammars by Gill, Jonson or Wallis, which, however, are referred to as "exceptions" of the potential or the indicative. The authors do not relate them to the subjunctive mood. In Miege, the subjunctive he love is found, even though the author claims earlier that indicative and subjunctive are formally identical.

Bibliography

Primary Texts Corpus of Early Modern English Grammars Aickin, Joseph 1967 Reprint. The English Grammar. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Lawrence, 1693. Bullokar, William 1977 Reprint. Bref Grammar for English. Delmar: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints. Original edition London: Bollifant, 1586. Butler, Charles 1910 Reprint. English Grammar. Halle/Saale: Niemeyer. Original edition, Oxford: Turner, 1634. Cooper, Christopher 1968 Reprint. Grammatica Linguce Anglicance. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Tooke, 1685. Gill, Alexander 1968 Reprint. Logonomia Anglica. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Beale, 1621. Greaves, Paul 1969 Reprint. Grammatica Anglicana. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, Canterbury: Legatt, 1594. Howell, John 1662 Microfilm. A New English Grammar. London: Williams, Brome and Marsh. Hume, Alexander 1865 Of the Orthographie and Congruitie of the Britan Tongue (1617). Edited by Henry B. Wheatley. London: Trübner. Jonson, Ben 1972 The English Grammar. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Bishop, 1640. Lane, A. 1969 Reprint. A Key to the Art of Letters. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Churchil and Wild, 1700. Lye, Thomas 1968 Reprint. The Child's Delight. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Parkhurst, 1671.

260

Bibliography

Miege, Guy 1969 Reprint. The English Grammar. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Redmayne, 1688. Newton, John 1669 Microfilm. School Pastime for Young Children: or The Rudiments of Grammar. Original edition, London: Walton, 1669. Poole, Joshua 1967 Reprint. The English Accidence. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Seile and Lownes, 1646. Wallis, John 1969 Reprint. Grammatica Linguce Anglicance. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, Oxford: Lichfield, 1653. Wharton. Jeremiah 1970 Reprint. The English Grammar. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Du-Gard, 1654.

Other Primary Texts Butler, Charles 1969 Reprint. The Feminine Monarchie or A Treatise Concerning Bees, and the Dve Ordering of Them. Amsterdam/New York: Da Capo Press. Original edition, Oxford: Barnes, 1609. Greenwood, James 1968 Reprint. Essay towards a Practical English Grammar. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Keeble, 1711. Lily, William and John Colet 1970 Reprint. A Shorte Introduction of Grammar. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Wolfhim, 1549. Mason, George 1905 Reprint. Grammaire Angloise. Halle: Niemeyer. Original edition, London: 1622. Miege, Guy 1682 Microfilm. A New Cosmography, or Survey of the Whole World. Original edition, London: Basset. 1728 Microfilm. Nouvelle Grammaire Angloise-Franqoise. Original edition, Rotterdam: Jean Daniel Beman. Mulcaster, Richard 1970 Reprint. The First Part of the Elementarie. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Vautroullier, 1582. Odell, James 1969 Reprint. Essay on the Elements, Accents and Prosody of the English Language. Hildesheim: Olms. Original edition, London: 1806.

Bibliography

261

Ramus Petrus 1965 Reprint. Rami Scholae in Tres Primas Liberales Artes. Frankfurt: Minerva. Original edition, Frankfurt: Wechel, 1581. 1990 Reprint. Rami Grammatica. Hildesheim: Olms. Original edition, Paris: Wechel, 1572. 1971 Reprint. Latin Grammar. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Robert Waldegrave, 1585. Wilkins, John 1968 Reprint. An Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language. Menston: The Scholar Press Limited. Original edition, London: Gellibrand, 1668.

Secondary Literature Abbott, E.A. 1966 Reprint. A Shakespearian Grammar. 3rd ed. New York: Dover. Original edition, London: Macmillan, 1870. Adamson, Sylvia, Vivian Law, Nigel Vincent and Susan Wright (eds.) 1990 Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Cambridge, 6-9 April 1987. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Aijmer, Karin and Bengt Altenberg (eds.) 1991 English Corpus Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London / New York: Longman. Algeo, John 1985 The Earliest English Grammars. In: Mary-Jo Arn, Hanneke Wirtjes and Hans Jansen (eds.), Historical and Editorial Studies in Medieval & Early Modern English for Johan Gerritsen, 191-207. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Allen, Cynthia L. 1995 On doing as you please. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 275-308. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Alston, Robin Carfrae 1974 A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention of Printing to the Year 1800. [10 vols.] Ilkley: Janus Press. Altenberg, Bengt 1982 The Genitive v. the of-Construction. A Study of Syntactic Variation in 17th Century English. Lund: Gleerup. Anderson, John 1997 Subjecthood and the English impersonal. In: Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling.

262

Bibliography

A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, 251-263. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Anderson, John M. and Charles Jones (eds.) 1974 Historical Linguistics. Theory and Description in Phonology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh 2nd-7th September 1973. [2 vols.] Amsterdam: North Holland. Arn, Mary-Jo, Hanneke Wirtjes and Hans Jansen (eds.) 1985 Historical and Editorial Studies in Medieval & Early Modern English for Johan Gerritsen. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Austin, Francis 1984 Double negatives and the eighteenth century. In: Norman F. Blake and Charles Jones (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development, 138-148. Sheffield: The Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield. Bailey, Richard W. 1985 The conquests of English. In: Sidney Greenbaum (ed.), The English Language Today, 9-19. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Baker, Howard, G. 1938 The Contribution of John Wallis to the Methods and Materials of English grammar. Baltimore: John Hopkins University. Bambas, Rudolph C. 1947 Verb forms in -s and -th in English Prose. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 46: 183-187. Barber, Charles 1981 'You' and 'Thou' in Shakespeare's Richard III. Leeds Studies in English New Series XII. 273-289. 1997 Reprint. Early Modern English. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Original edition, London: Deutsch, 1976. Barbour, Florus Alonso 1902 Teaching of English Grammar. Boston. Bately, Janet M. 1964 Dryden's revisions in the Essay of Dramatic Poesy: The preposition at the end of the sentence and the expression of the relative. Review of English Studies 15: 268-282. 1965 W h o and which and the Grammarians of the 17th Century. English Studies 46: 245-250. Baugh, Albert and Thomas Cable 2002 Reprint. A History of the English Language. 5th ed. London: Routledge. Original edition, New York: Appleton - Century - Crofts, 1935.

Bibliography

263

Bekken, Bjorg 2000 Inversion in Early Modern English. English Studies 81: 393-421. Bergh, Gunnar and Aimo Seppänen 1994 Subject extraction in English: the use of the f/iar-complementizer. In: Francisco Fernandez, Miguel Fuster and Juan Jose Calvo (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992, 133-143. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. 2000 Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey. English Language and Linguistics 4 : 295-316. Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg and C.B. Cully (eds.) 2000 Generative Theory and Corpus Studies. A Dialogue from the Tenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Blaicher, Günther and Brigitte Glaser (eds.) 1994 Anglistentag 1993 Eichstätt: Proceedings. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Blake, Norman F. 1989 The Language of Shakespeare. London: Macmillan. 1996 A History of the English Language. London: Macmillan. 1999 Nonstandard language in early varieties. In: Irma Taavitsainen, Gunnel Melchers and Päivi Pahta (eds.), Writing in Nonstandard English, 123-150. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Blake, Norman F. and Charles Jones (eds.) 1984 English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development. Sheffield: The Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield. Boas, Hans Ulrich 1992 On explaining the historical development of English genitives. In: Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, 226-240. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Borsche, Tilman (ed.) 1996 Klassiker der Sprachphilosophie. Von Piaton bis Noam Chomsky. München: Beck. Breejen, Bastiaan den 1937 The Genitive and its οί-Equivalent in the latter Half of the Sixteenth Century. Amsterdam: Paris. Breivik, Leiv Egil and Toril Swan 1994 Initial adverbials and word order in English with special reference to the Early Modern English period. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 11-43. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

264

Bibliography

Brekle, Herbert E. 1975 The Seventeenth Century. Current Trends in Linguistics 13: 277382. Breuer, Horst 1983 Titel und Anreden bei Shakespeare und in der Shakespearezeit. Anglia 101: 49-77. Brinton, Laurel J. 1994 The differentiation of statives and perfects in Early Modern English: The development of the conclusive perfect. In: Dieter Stein and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English, 135— 170. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Brinton, Laurel J. and Minoji Akimoto (eds.) 1999 Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Brinton, Laurel J. and Desiree Lundstrom (eds.) 2001 Historical Linguistics 1999. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Britton, Derek (ed.) 1996 English Historical Linguistics 1994. Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Brook, G. L. 1958 History of the English language. London: Deutsch. 1976 The Language of Shakespeare. London: Deutsch. Brose, Brigitte 1939 Die englischen Passivkonstruktionen vom Typus Ί am told a story' und Ί am sent for'. Würzburg-Aumühle: Triltsch. Brosnahan, L. F. 1961 The apostrophe in the genitive singular in the 17th century. English Studies 42: 363-369. Brotanek, Rudolph 1956 Englische Sprachbücher aus frühneuenglischer Zeit. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 4: 5-18. Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, 253-276. Cambridge/MS: M.I.T. Press. 1989 Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. Language Society 18: 159-212. Brunner, Karl 1960 Reprint. Die englische Sprache. [2 vols.] 2nd ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Original edition, Halle: Niemeyer, 1950.

Bibliography

265

Bruti, Silvia 2000 Address pronouns in Shakespeare's English. In: Kastovsky, Dieter and Arthur Mettinger (eds.), The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics, 25-51. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bynon, Theodora 1977 Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byrne, M. St Clare 1964 The foundations of Elizabethan language. Shakespeare Survey 127: 223-239. Byrne, Sister Geraldine 1936 Shakespeare's Use of the Pronoun of Address; its Significance in Characterization and Motivation. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America. Calvo, Clara 1992 Pronouns of address and social negation in As you like it. Language and Literature 1/1: 5-27. Carls, Uwe and Peter Lucko (eds.) 1999 Form, Function and Variation in English. Studies in Honour of Klaus Hansen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Charleston, Britta Marian 1941 Studies on the Syntax of the English Verb. Bern: Stämpfli & Cie. Charlton, Kenneth 1965 Education in Renaissance England. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul. Cheshire, Jenny 1994 Standardization and the English irregular verbs. In: Dieter Stein and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English, 115133. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chomsky, Noam 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 1970 Current issues in linguistic theory. In: Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (eds.), The Structure of Language, 50-118. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö 1999a Investigating nonstandard language in a corpus of Early Modern English dialogues: Methodological considerations and problems. In: Taavitsainen, Irma, Gunnel Melchers, Päivi Pahta (eds.), Writing in Nonstandard English, 171-187. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1999b Modifying pragmatic force: Hedges in Early Modern English dialogues. In: Jucker, Andreas H., Gerd Fritz, and Franz Lebsanft (eds.), Historical Dialogue Analysis, 293-312. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

266

Bibliography

2000a

Gender voices in the spoken interaction of the past: A pilot study based on Early Modern English trial proceedings. In: Kastovsky, Dieter and Arthur Mettinger (eds.), The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics, 53-89. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2000b Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1: 175-199. 2000c The conjunction and in Early Modern English: Frequencies and uses in speech-related writing and other texts. In: Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg and C.B. McCully (eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies: A Dialogue from the Tenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 299326. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Curme, George O. 1912 A history of the English relative constructions. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 11: 10-29, 180-204, 355-380. 1931 A Grammar of the English Language. [3 vols.] Boston: Heath & Company. Curtis, Stanley J. 1967 Reprint. History of Education in Great Britain. 7th ed. Foxton: University Tutorial Press. Original edition, London: University Tutorial Press, 1948. Curzan, Anne 2000 Gender categories in early English grammars: Their message to the modern grammarian. In: Unterbeck, Barbara, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen and Mirja Saari (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition, 561-576. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dahl, Torsten 1956 The Auxiliary DO. Kopenhagen: Munksgaard. Danchev, Andrei and Merja Kytö 1994 The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 59-77. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Danielsson, Bror and Arvid Gabrielson (eds.) 1972 Alexander Gill's LOGONOMIA ANGLICA (1619). [2 vols.] Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Dekeyser, Xavier 1984 Relativizers in Early Modern English: A dynamic quantitative study. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Syntax, 61-87. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1986 English contact clauses revisited: a diachronic approach. Folia Linguistica Historical·. 107-120.

Bibliography 1997

267

On the spread of wh-relativization in the history of English. In: Mechthild Reinhardt and Wolfgang Thiele (eds.), Grammar and Text in Synchrony and Diachrony: In Honour of Gottfried Graustein, 3340. Frankfurt: Vervuert. Dekeyser, Xavier and Mia Ingels 1988 Socio-historical aspects of relativization in late 16th century English: ca. 1550-1600. Studia Anglia Posnaniensia 21: 25-39. Denison, David 1985 The origins of periphrastic do\ Ellegärd and Visser reconsidered. In: Roger Eaton, Olga Fischer, Willem Koopman and Frederike van der Leek (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 45-60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1993 English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London / New York: Longman. Diller, Hans-Jyrgen and Manfred Görlach (eds.) 2000 Towards a History of English as a History of Genres. Heidelberg: Winter. Dobson, Eric J. 1955 Early Modern Standard English. Transactions of the Philological Society 53: 25-54. 1968 Reprint. English Pronunciation 1500-1700. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Original edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. Earle, J. 1887 Reprint. The Philology of the English Tongue. 4th ed. London. Original edition, Oxford, 1871. Eaton, Roger, Olga Fischer, Willem Koopman and Frederike van der Leek (eds.) 1985 Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Ellegärd, Alvar 1953 The Auxiliary do. The Establishment and Regulation of its Use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Elmer, Willy 1981 Diachronic Grammar. The History of Old and Middle English Subjectless Constructions. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Elsness, Johan 1994 On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English. ICAME Journal 18: 5-25. Engblom, Victor 1938 On the Origin and Early Development of the Auxiliary do. Lund: Gleerup.

268

Bibliography

Enkvist, Nils Erik 1958 Paul Greaves, Author of Grammatica Anglicana. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 59: 277-279. 1975 English in Latin Guise. Historiographia Linguistica 11:3: 283-298. Erdmann, Peter 1980 On the history of subject contact-clauses in English. Folia Linguistica 1/1: 139-170. Esser, Jürgen 1988 Die unregelmäßigen Verben im heutigen Englisch aus diachroner und synchroner Sicht. Zeitschrift für Anglistik and Amerikanistik 36: 2646. Fanego, Teresa 1990 Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare's English. Studia Neophilologica 62: 3-21, 129-149. 1992 Infinitive Complements in Shakespeare's English. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Servicio de Publicaciones e Intercambio Cientifico. 1994 Infinitive marking in Early Modern English. In: Francisco Fernandez, Miguel Fuster and Juan Jose Calvo (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992, 191-203. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Fanego, Teresa, Maria Jose Lopez-Couso and Javier Perez-Guerra (eds.) 2002 English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Fasold, Ralph W. and Deborah Schiffrin (eds.) 1989 Language Change and Variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Fernandez, Francisco, Miguel Fuster and Juan Jose Calvo (eds.) 1994 English Historical Linguistics 1992. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Filppula, Markku 1999 The Grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian style. London: Routledge. Finkenstaedt, Thomas 1963 You und Thou. Studien zur Anrede im Englischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman and Wim van der Wurff (eds.) 2000 The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fisher, John H. 1977 Chancery and the emergence of standard written English in the fifteenth century. Speculum 52: 870-899. Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1984 Historical Syntax. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bibliography 1988

269

Historical Dialectology. Regional and Social. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997 Studies in Middle English Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Fisiak, Jacek and Marcin Rrygier (eds.) 1998 Advances in English Historical Linguistics (1996). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Fodor, Jerry A. and Jerrold J. Katz (eds.) 1964 The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Foster, Watson 1912 English Grammar - historical development. In: Paul Monroe (ed.), A Cyclopedia of Education, Vol.3, 132-133. New York. Franz, Wilhelm 1892/93 Zur Syntax des älteren Neuenglisch. Englische Studien 17/18: 200225, 384-402 and 191-219,422-451. 1986 Reprint. Die Sprache Shakespeares in Vers und Prosa. 4th ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Original edition, Halle/Saale: Niemeyer, 1939. Friden, Georg 1948 Studies on the Tenses of the English Verb from Chaucer to Shakespeare. With Special Reference to the Late Sixteenth Century. Uppsala: Alqvist & Wiksell. Fries, Charles Carpenter 1925 The periphrastic future with shall and will in Modern English. PMLA 40: 963-1024. 1927 The rules of common school grammars. PMLA 42: 221-237. 1940 On the development of the structural use of word-order in modern English. Language 16: 199-208. Fries, Udo 1988 The use of computers in English linguistics. In: Manfred Markus (ed.), Historical English. On the occasion of Karl Brunner's 100th birthday, 45-62. Innsbruck: Institut fur Anglistik, Universität Innsbruck. Fries, Udo and Martin Heusser (eds.) 1989 Meaning and Beyond. Ernst Leisi zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Narr. Funke, Otto (ed.) 1938a Grammatica Anglicana von Gr. (1594). Wien/Leipzig: Braumüller. Funke, Otto 1938b William Bullokars Bref Grammar for English (1586). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der frühneuenglischen Grammatik. Anglia 62: 116— 137. 1940 Ben Jonsons English Grammar (1640). Anglia 64: 117-134. 1941 Die Frühzeit der englischen Grammatik. Bern: Lang.

270 1942

Bibliography

Sprachphilosophie und Grammatik im Spiegel englischer Sprachbücher des 17. and 18. Jahrhunderts. In: B. Liljegren and J. Melander (eds.), A Philological Miscellany. Presented to Ellert Ekwall, 15-29. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala. 1954 On the system of grammar. Archivum Linguisticum 6: 1-19. Gaaf, Wilhelm van der 1929 The conversion of the indirect personal object into the subject of a passive construction. English Studies 11: 1-11 and 58-67. 1930 The passive of a verb accompanied by a preposition. English Studies 12: 1-24. 1967 Reprint. The Transition from the Impersonal to the Personal Construction in Middle English. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. Original edition, Heidelberg: Winter, 1904. Gabrielson, Arvid 1942 A few notes on Gill's Logonomia Anglica 1619. In: B. Liljegren and J. Melander (eds.), A Philological Miscellany. Presented to Eilert Ekwall, 331-339. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Giles, Edward L. 1936 John Newton on education. Notes & Queries 175: 22-24. Gneuss, Helmut 1996 English Language Scholarship: A Bibliography and Survey from the Beginning to the End of the Nineteenth Century. Binghampton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies. Goossens, Louis 1984 The interplay of syntax and semantics in the development of the English modals. In: Norman F. Blake and Charles Jones (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development, 149—159. Sheffield: The Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield. Görlach, Manfred 1985 Renaissance English (1525-1640). In: Sidney Greenbaum (ed.), The English Language Today, 30—40. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 1988 The study of Early Modern English variation - the Cinderella of English historical linguistics? In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Dialectology. Regional and Social, 211-228. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1991 Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gotti, Maurizio 2002 Pragmatic uses of SHALL-future constructions in Early Modern English. In: Donka Minkova and Robert Stockwell (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millenial Perspective, 301-324. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bibliography

271

Graband, Gerhard 1956 Neuenglisches them als Demonstrativum. Zeitschrift fiir Anglistik und Amerikanistik 4: 343-352. 1965 Die Entwicklung der frühneuenglischen Nominalflexion. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Greenbaum, Sidney (ed.) 1985 The English Language Today. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Han, Chung-Hye 2000 The evolution of do-support in English imperatives. In: Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas and Anthony Warner (eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms, 275-295. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hauck, Eduard 1904/05 William Bullokar. Jahresbericht der Oberrealschule zu Marburg a. d. Lahn 499: 3-12. Hausmann, Robert B. 1974 The development of periphrastic do in English. In: John M. Anderson and Charles Jones (eds.) Historical Linguistics. Theory and Description in Phonology. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh 2nd - 7th September 1973. [2 vols.] Vol.1, 159-189. Amsterdam: North Holland. Herford, C. H. and Percy Simpson 1954-1963 Reprint. Ben Jonson. [11 vols.] Oxford: Clarendon. Original edition, Oxford: Clarendon, 1924. Hickey, Raymond and Stanislaw Puppel (eds.) 1997 Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday. [2 vols.] Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hickey, Raymond, Merja Kytö, Ian Lancashire and Matti Rissanen (eds.) 1997 Tracing the Trail of Time. Proceedings from the Second Diachronic Corpora Workshop. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. Hiltunen, Risto 1983 Phrasal verbs in English grammar books before 1800. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84: 376-386. 1994 On phrasal verbs in Early Modern English: Notes on lexis and style. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 129140. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1999 Verbal phrases and phrasal verbs in Early Modern English. In: Laurel J. Brinton and Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English, 133—165. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

272

Bibliography

Holmqvist, Erik 1922 On the History of the English Present Inflections, particularly -th and -s. Heidelberg, Winter. Hope, Jonathan 1993 Second person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern 'Spoken' English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 94: 83-100. 1994 The use of thou and you in Early Modern spoken English: evidence from depositions in the Durham ecclesiastical court records. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 141-151. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Horn, Jacob 1911 Das englische Verbum nach Zeugnissen von Grammatikern des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. Darmstadt: Hof. Ihalainen, Ossi, Merja Kytö and Matti Rissanen 1987 The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Diachronic and dialectal, report on work in progress. In: Willem Meijs (ed.), Corpus Linguistics and Beyond. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, 21-32. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Iyeiri, Yoko 2002 Development of any from Middle English to Early Modern English: A study using the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. In: Toshio Saito, Junsaku Nakamura, Shunji Yamazaki and Geoffrey Leech (eds.), English Corpus Limguistics in Japan, 211-223. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Jacobson, Sven (ed.) 1980 Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksells. 1983 Papers from the Second Symposium on Syntactic Variation. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmensis 57) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1986 Papers from the Third Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Jacobsson, Bengt 1951 Inversion in English with Special Reference to the Early Modern English Period. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Jespersen, Otto 1907 John Hart's pronunciation of English (1569 and 1570). Heidelberg: Winter. 1909-1949 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. [7 vols.] Kopenhagen: Munksgaard. 1926 Notes on relative clauses. Society for Pure English Tract 24: 103117. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1952 Reprint. Growth and Structure of the English Language. 9th ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Original edition, 1905.

Bibliography

273

Jiriczek, Otto 1902 Alexander Gill. In: Max Koch (ed.), Studien zur vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte, 129-145. Berlin. Johannisson, Türe 1958 On the be and have constructions with mutative verbs. Studia Linguistica 12: 106-118. Jones, Charles (ed.) 1993 Historical Linguistics. Problems and Perspectives. London/New York: Longman. 1997 The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Jones, Richard Foster 1966 Reprint. The triumph of the English Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Original edition, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1953. Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.) 1995 Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Jucker, Andreas H., Gerd Fritz, and Franz Lebsanft (eds.) 1999 Historical Dialogue Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kakietek, Piotr 1970 May and might in Shakespeare's English. Linguistics 64: 27-35. 1972 Modal Verbs in Shakespeare's English. Poznan: Universität Adam Mickiewicza. 1976 The perfect auxiliaries in the language of Shakespeare. Studia Anglica Posnaniensa 8: 45-53. Kastovsky, Dieter 1989 Typological changes in the history of English morphology. In: Udo Fries and Martin Heusser (eds.), Meaning and Beyond. Ernst Leisi zum 70. Geburtstag, 159-178. Tübingen: Narr. Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.) 1991 Historical English Syntax. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1994 Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kastovsky, Dieter and Arthur Mettinger (eds.) 2000 The History of English in α Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Keenan, Edward L. and Bernhard Comrie 1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63-99. Keil, Heinrich 1981 Reprint. Grammatici Latini. [8 vols.] 2nd ed. Hildesheim/New York: Olms. Original edition, Leipzig: Teubner, 1855-1880.

274

Bibliography

Kemenade, Ans van 1992 Structural factors in the history of English modals. In: Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, 287-309. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kemp, J. A. (ed.) 1972 John Wallis: Grammar of the English language. With a Translation and Commentary by J. A. Kemp. London: Longman. Kennedy, Arthur G. 1961 Reprint. A Bibliography of Writings on the English Language from the Beginning of Printing to the End of 1922. New York: Hafner. Original edition, New York: Hafner, 1927. Kenyon, John 1914 Ye and you in the King James Version. PMLA 29: 453-471. Kihlbom, Asta 1938 Present subjunctive in conditional clauses. Studia Neophilologica 11: 257-266. Kilpiö, Matti 1997 On the forms and functions of the verb be from Old to Modern English. In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.), English in Transition. Corpus-based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles, 87-120. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kittredge, George Lyman 1903 Some Landmarks in the History of English Grammars. Ginn. Kniezsa, Veronika 1997 Alexander Hume: Of the Orthographie and Congruitie of the Britan Tongue. Scottish Language 16: 52-62. Knorrek, Marianne 1938 Der Einfluß des Rationalismus auf die englische Sprache. Breslau: Priebatsch. Koch, Max (ed.) 1902 Studien zur vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte. [2 vols.] Berlin. Kohnen, Thomas 1997 Toward a theoretical foundation of 'text type' in diachronic corpora: Investigations with the Helsinki Corpus. In: Raymond Hickey, Merja Kytö, Ian Lancashire and Matti Rissanen (eds.), Tracing the Trail of Time. Proceedings from the Second Diachronic Corpora Workshop, 185-197. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. Kohonen, Viljo 1978 On the development of an awareness of English syntax in early (1550-1660) descriptions of word order by English Grammarians, logicians and rhetoricians. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 79: 44-59.

Bibliography

275

Kopytko, Roman 1988 The impersonal use of verbs in William Shakespeare's plays. Studia Anglia Posnaniensia 21: 41-51. 1993 Polite Discourse in Shakespeare's English. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. 1995 Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare's plays. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 515-540. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kortmann, Bernd 1997a Adverbial Subordination. A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinates Based on European Languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997b Typology and Language Change. In: Uwe Böker and Hans Sauer (eds.), Anglistentag 1996 Dresden. Proceedings, 109-124. Trier. Krickau, Carl 1877 Der Accusativ mit dem Infinitiv in der englischen Sprache, besonders im Zeitalter der Elisabeth. Göttingen: Dieterichs. Kroch, Antony 1989 Function and grammar in the history of English: periphrastic DO. In: Ralph W. Fasold and Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), Language Change and Variation, 133-172. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kruisinga, E. 1929 On syntactic groups with the auxiliary to have. English Studies 11: 17-20. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara 1995 Demonstratives in Early Modern English letters. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 329-344. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kühner, Raphael and Friedrich Holzweissig 1955 Reprint. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache. [2 vols.] 3rd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Original edition, Hannover: Hahn, 1877. Kytö, Merja 1986a May and Might indicating 'epistemic possibility' in Early American English. In: Sven Jacobson (ed.), Papers from the Third Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation, 131-142. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1986b On the use of the modal auxiliaries can and may in Early American English. In: David Sankoff (ed.), Diversity and Diachrony, 123-138. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1990 Introduction to the use of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Diachronie and Dialectal. In: Magnus Ljung (ed), Proceedings from the

276

Bibliography

Stockholm Conference on the Use of Computers in Language Research and Teaching. September 7-9, J989, 41-56. Stockholm: English Department of the University of Stockholm. 1991 Can (could) vs. may (might): regional variation in Early Modern English? In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English Syntax, 233289. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1993a Early American English. In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), Early English in the Computer Age. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus, 83-91. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1993b Third-person present singular verb inflection in early British and American English. Language Variation and Change 5: 113-139. 1993c Variation and Diachrony, with early American English in Focus: Studies on CAN/MAY and SHALL/WILL. Frankfurt, Lang. 1994a Be vs. have with intransitives in Early Modern English. In: Francisco Fernandez, Miguel Fuster and Juan Jose Calvo (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992, 179-190. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1994b Towards a corpus of early American English. In: Merja Kytö, Matti Rissanen and Susan Wright (eds.), Corpora across the Centuries. Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronie Corpora, 33-39. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. 1996 Reprint. Manual to the Diachronic Part of The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Coding Conventions and Lists of Source Texts. 3rd ed. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Original edition, Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 1991. 1997 Be/have + past participle: The choice of the auxiliary with intransitives from Late Middle to Modern English. In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.), English in Transition. Corpusbased Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles, 17-85. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1999 Collocational and idiomatic aspects of verbs in Early Modern English: A corpus-based study of MAKE, HAVE, GIVE, TAKE and DO. In: Laurel J. Brinton and Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English, 167-206. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Kytö, Meqa and Matti Rissanen 1983 The syntactic study of Early American English - The variationist at the mercy of his corpus? Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84: 470490. 1988 The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: classifying and coding the diachronic part. In: Merja Kytö, Ossi Ihalainen and Matti Rissanen (eds.), Corpus Linguistics, Hard and Soft. Proceedings of the Eighth

Bibliography

277

International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, 169-179. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1992 A language in transition: The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. ICAME Journal 16: 7-27. 'By and by enters [this] my artificiall foole ... who, when Jack be1993 held, sodainely he flew at him': Searching for constructions in the Helsinki Corpus. In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), Early English in the Computer Age. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus, 253-266. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1996 English historical corpora: Reports on developments in 1995. ICAME Journal 20: 117-132. 1997 Language analysis and diachronic corpora. In: Raymond Hickey, Merja Kytö, Ian Lancashire and Matti Rissanen (eds.), Tracing the Trail of Time. Proceedings from the Second Diachronic Corpora Workshop, 9-22. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. Kytö, Merja, Matti Rissanen and Susan Wright (eds.) 1994 Corpora across the Centuries. Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronic Corpora. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. Kytö, Merja, Ossi Ihalainen and Matti Rissanen (eds.) 1988 Corpus Linguistics, Hard and Soft. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kytö, Merja and Atro Voutilainen 1995 Applying the constraint grammar parser of English to the Helsinki Corpus. ICAME Journal 19: 23-48. Kytö, Merja and Suzanne Romaine 2000 Adjective comparison and standardization processes in American and British English from 1620 to the present. In: Wright, Laura (ed.), The Development of Standard English, 1300-1800. Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, 171-194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lass, Roger 1994 Proliferation and option-cutting: The strong verb in the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. In: Dieter Stein and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English, 81-113. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lass, Roger (ed.) 1999a The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume 3: 14761776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

278

Bibliography

Lass, Roger 1999b Phonology and morphology. In: Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume 3: 1476-1776, 56-186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehnert, Martin 1936 Die Grammatik des englischen Sprachmeisters John Wallis (16161703). Breslau: Priebatsch. 1937/38 Die Abhängigkeit frühneuenglischer Grammatiken. Englische Studien 72: 192-206. 1958 Die Entstehung des neuenglischen its. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 6: 22-28. Gerhard Leitner (ed.) 1986 The English Reference Grammar. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lightfood, David W. 1974 The diachronic analysis of English modals. In: John M. Anderson and Charles Jones (eds.), Historical Linguistics. Theory and Description in Phonology. Proceedings First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh 2nd-7th September 1973, [2 vols.] Vol.1, 219-249. Amsterdam: North Holland. 1979 Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liljegren, B. and J. Melander (eds.) 1942 A Philological Miscellany. Presented to Ellert Ekwall. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Ljung, Magnus (ed.) 1990 Proceedings from the Stockholm Conference on the Use of Computers in Language Research and Teaching. September 7—9, 1989. Stockholm: English Department of the University of Stockholm. Lopez Couso, Maria Jose 1996 A look at that/zero variation in restoration English. In: Derek Britton (ed.), English Historical Linguistics 1994. Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 271-286. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Luick, Karl 1964 Reprint. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. [2 vols.] Stuttgart, Tauchnitz. Original edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 1914— 1940. Mair, Christian 1988 The transition from the impersonal to the personal use of the verb like in late Middle English and Early Modern English - some previously neglected determinants of variation. In: Manfred Markus (ed.), Historical English. On the Occasion of Karl Brunner's 100th Birth-

Bibliography

279

day, 210-218. Innsbruck: Institut fur Anglistik, Universität Innsbruck. Mair Christian and Marianne Hundt (eds.) 2000 Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam, Rodopi. Marchand, Hans 1938/39 Syntaktische Homonymie: das umschreibende do. Englische Studien 73: 227-252. Markus, Manfred (ed.) 1988 Historical English. On the Occasion of Karl Brunner's 100th Birthday. Innsbruck: Institut für Anglistik, Universität Innsbruck. Meech, Sanford B. 1935 Early application of Latin grammar to English. PMLA 50: 10121032. Meier, Hans Heinrich 1967 The lag of relative who in the nominative. Neophilologus 51: 277288.

Meijs, Willem (ed.) 1987 Corpus Linguistics and Beyond. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Meurman-Solin, Anneli 1993a Older Scots. In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Minna PalanderCollin (eds.), Early English in the Computer Age. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus, 75-82. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1993b Periphrastic do in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Scots. In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), Early English in the Computer Age. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus, 235-251. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1993c Variation and Change in Early Scottish Prose. Studies Based on the Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica. 1994 The Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots. In: Merja Kytö, Matti Rissanen and Susan Wright (eds.), Corpora across the Centuries. Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronic Corpora, 53-63. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. 1995 A new tool: The Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots (1450-1700). ICAME Journal 19: 49-62. 1997 Text profiles in the study of language variation and change. In: Raymond Hickey, Merja Kytö, Ian Lancashire and Matti Rissanen (eds.), Tracing the Trail of Time. Proceedings from the Second Diachronic Corpora Workshop, 200-214. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.

280 1999

2000

2001

Bibliography Letters as a source of data for reconstructing early spoken Scots. In: Irma Taavitsainen, Gunnel Melchers, Päivi Pahta (eds.), Writing in Nonstandard English, 305-322. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Geographical, socio-spatial and systemic distance in the spread of the relative who in Scots. In: Ricardo Bermudez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg and C.B. Cully (eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies. A Dialogue from the Tenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 417-438. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Structured text corpora in the study of language variation and change. Literary & Linguistic Computing 16: 5-27.

Michael, Ian 1970 English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Millward, Celia 1966 Pronominal case in Shakespearean imperatives. Language 42: 10-17. Milroy, James and Leslie Milroy 1985 Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21: 339-384. Minkova, Dinka and Robert Stockwell 2002 Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millenial Perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Mitchell, Bruce 1976 No 'House is building' in Old English. English Studies 57: 385-389. 1985 Old English Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon. Moessner, Lilo 1984 Some English relative constructions. La Linguistique 20/1: 57-79. 1985 Impersonal constructions in Early Middle English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 17: 29-38. 1989 Early Middle English Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1991 How English are Old English relative constructions? Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 25-27: 95-107. 1992 Relative constructions and functional amalgamation in Early Modern English. In: Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, 336-351. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1994 Early Modern English passive constructions. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 217-231. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997a Economy as a principle of syntactic change. In: Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling.

Bibliography

281

A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, 357-372. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997b The syntax of Older Scots. In: Charles Jones (ed.), The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language, 112-155. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 1997c -mg-contructions in Middle English. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Studies in Middle English Linguistics, 335-349. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1999 The negative relative marker but. A case of syntactic borrowing. In: Guy A.J. Tops, Betty Devriend and Geukens, Steven (eds.), Thinking English Grammar: To Honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus, 65-77. Leuven: Peeters. 2000a Grammatical description and language use in the 17th century. In: Ricardo Bermudez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg and C.B. Cully (eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies. A Dialogue from the Tenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 395-416. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2000b Word-formation in Early Modern English grammars. In: Bernhard Reitz and Sigrid Rieuwerts (eds.), Anglistentag 1999 Mainz. Proceedings, 21-34. WVT, Trier. 2002 Who used the subjunctive in the 17th century? In: Sybil Scholz, Monika Klages, Evelyn Hantson and Ute Römer (eds.), Language. Context and Cognition. Papers in Honour of Wolf-Dietrich Bald's 60,h Birthday, 227-235. München: Langenscheidt-Longman. 2003 Diachronic English Linguistics. An Introduction. Tübingen: Narr. Moessner, Lilo, and Ursula Schaefer 1987 Reprint. Proseminar Mittelenglisch. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Francke. Original edition, Darmstadt: thesen, 1974. Monroe, Paul (ed.) 1912 A Cyclopaedia of Education. New York. Moore, J.L. 1973 Reprint. Tudor-Stuart View on the Growth, Status and Destiny of the English Language. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Original edition, Halle: Niemeyer, 1910. Moralejo-Garate, Teresa 2000 That/zero variation in an Early Modern English corpus of private and non-private letters. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 19: 77-92. Mosse, Fernand 1938 Histoire de la forme periphrastique etre plus participe present en germanique. Paris: Klincksieck. Muir, Kenneth and S. Schoenbaum (eds.) 1971 A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

282

Bibliography

Mulholland, Joan 1967 'You' and 'thou' in Shakespeare: A study in the second person pronoun. English Studies 48: 34—43. Müller, Friedrich Christian 1916 Der Formenbau des Nomens und Pronomens im Neuenglischen nach Grammatikerzeugnissen. Berlin: Ebering. Mustanoja, Tauno Frans 1960 A Middle English Syntax. [2 vols.] Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique. Nehls, Dietrich 1974 Synchron-diachrone Untersuchungen zur expanded form im Englischen. München: Hueber. Nelson, W. 1952 The teaching of English in Tudor grammar schools. Studies in Philology 49: 119-143. Nevalainen, Terttu 1983 A corpus of colloquial Early Modern English for a lexical-syntactic study: Evidence for consistency and variation. In: Sven Jacobson (ed.), Papers from the Second Symposium on Syntactic Variation, 109-122. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmensis 57) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1986 The development of preverbal only in Early Modern English. In: David Sankoff (ed.), Diversity and Diachrony, 111-121. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1990 Modelling functional differentiation and functional loss: the case of but. Sylvia Adamson, Vivian Law, Nigel Vincent and Susan Wright (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Cambridge, 6-9 April 1987, 337-355. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1991 Motivated archaism: the use of affirmative periphrastic do in Early Modern English liturgical prose. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English Syntax, 303-320. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1994a Aspects of adverbial change in Early Modern English. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 243-259. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1994b Ladies and gentlemen: the generalization of titles in early Modern English. In: Francisco Fernandez, Miguel Fuster and Juan Jose Calvo (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992, 313-327. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1996a Gender difference. In: Terttu Nevalainen and Helena RaumolinBrunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 77-91. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.

Bibliography 1996b

283

Social stratification. In: Terttu Nevalainen and Helena RaumolinBrunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 57-76. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. 1997a Ongoing work on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. In: Raymond Hickey, Merja Kytö, Ian Lancashire and Matti Rissanen (eds.), Tracing the Trail of Time. Proceedings from the Second Diachronie Corpora Workshop, 81-90. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. 1997b The processes of adverb derivation in Late Middle and Early Modern English. In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.), Grammaticalization at Work. Studies of Long-term Developments in English, 145-189. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1998 Social mobility and the decline of multiple negation in Early Modern English. In: Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier (eds.), Advances in English Historical Linguistics (1996), 263-291. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1999 The facts and nothing but: the (non-)grammaticalisation of negative exclusives in English. In: Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Gunnel Tottie and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Negation in the History of English, 167-187. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1999a Making the best use of 'bad' data: evidence for sociolinguistic variation in Early Modern English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 100: 499-533. 1999b Early Modern English lexis and semantics. In: Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume 3: 1476-1776, 332-458. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000 Mobility, social network and language change in Early Modern England. European Journal of English Studies 4: 253-264. 2001 Continental conventions in early English correspondence. In: Diller, Hans-Jyrgen and Manfred Görlach (eds.), Towards a History of English as a History of Genres, 203-224. Heidelberg: Winter. 2000 Gender differences in the evolution of Standard English: evidence from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Journal of English Linguistics 28: 38-59. Nevalainen, Terttu and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg 1989 A corpus of Early Modern Standard English in a socio-historical perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 90: 67-110. 1993 Early Modern British English. In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), Early English in the Computer Age. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus, 53-73. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1994 Its strength and the beauty of it: The standardization of the third person neuter possessive in Early Modern English. In: Dieter Stein and

284

Bibliography

Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English, 171216. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Grayter. 1995 Constraints on politeness. The pragmatics of address formulae in Early English Correspondence. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 541-601. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1996a Social stratification in Tudor English? In: Derek Britton (ed.), English Historical Linguistics 1994. Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 303-326. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1996b The Corpus of Early English Correspondence. In: Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 39-54. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. 2000 The changing role of London in the linguistic map of Tudor and Stuart England. In: Kastovsky, Dieter and Arthur Mettinger (eds.), The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics, 279-337. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2003 Historical Sociolinguistics. London: Longman. Nevalainen, Terttu and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.) 1996c Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. Nevalainen, Terttu and Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.) 1997 To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 395—417. Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique. Nichols, Johanna 2001 Why 'me' and 'thee'? In: Laurel J. Brinton and Desiree Lundstrom (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1999, 253-276. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nishimura, Hideo 2002 Degree adverbs in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence sampler. In: Toshio Saito, Junsaku Nakamura, Shunji Yamazaki and Geoffrey Leech (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics in Japan, 183— 193. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Nunally, Thomas E. 1992 Man's son / son of man: translation, textual conditioning, and the history of English genitive. In: Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, 359-372. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bibliography

285

Nunez-Pertejo, Paloma 1999a The progressive from Old English to Early Modern English. Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature 9: 21-34. 1999b Be going to + infinitive: origin and development: some relevant cases from the Helsinki Corpus. Studia Neophilologica 71: 135-142. Nurmi, Arja 1996 Periphrastic DO and BE+ING: interconnected developments? In: Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 151-165. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. A Social History of Periphrastic DO. Helsinki: Societe Neophilolo1970 gique. 2000a The rise and regulation of periphrastic do in negative declarative sentences: a sociolinguistic study. In: Kastovsky, Dieter and Arthur Mettinger (eds.), The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics, 339-362. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2000b The rise and fall of periphrastic DO in Early Modern English: Or, Howe the Scots will declare themselv's. In: Ricardo BermudezOtero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg and C.B. Cully (eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies. A Dialogue from the Tenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 373-394. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. OED = Murray, James A. and William A. Craigie (eds.) 1989 Reprint. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Original edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Ogura, Mieko and Wang, William S.-Y. 1996 Snowball effect in lexical diffusion. The development of -5 in the third person singular present indicative in English. In: Derek Britton (ed.), English Historical Linguistics 1994. Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 119-141. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Padley, G. A. 1988 Grammatical Theory in Western Europe 1500-1700: Trends in Vernacular Grammar. [2 vols.] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palander-Collin, Minna 1996 The rise and fall of METHINKS. In: Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 131149. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.

286

Bibliography

1999a

Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique. 1999b I think, methinks: Register variation, stratification, education and nonstandard language. In: Irma Taavitsainen, Gunnel Melchers, Päivi Pahta (eds.), Writing in Nonstandard English, 243-262. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1999c Male and female styles in 17th century correspondence: I THINK. Language Variation & Change 11: 123-141. 2000 The language of husbands and wives in seventeenth-century correspondence. In: Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 289-300. Amsterdam, Rodopi. Partridge, A. C. 1948 The periphrastic auxiliary verb 'do' and its use in the plays of Ben Jonson. Modern Language Review 43: 26-33. 1953a The Accidence of Ben Johnson's Plays, Masques and Entertainment. Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes. 1953b Studies in the Syntax of Ben Jonson's Plays. Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes. 1969 Tudor to Augustan English. A Study in Syntax and Style from Caxton to Johnson. London: Deutsch. 1976 A Substantive Grammar of Shakespeare's Nondramatic Texts. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Peitsara, Kirsti 1992 On the development of the by-agent in English. In: Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, 379-400. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1993 On the development of the 6y-agent in English. In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), Early English in the Computer Age. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus, 219-233. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pennanen, Esko V. 1966 Notes on the Grammar in Ben Jonson's Dramatic Works. Tampere: Yhteiskunnallinen Korkeakoulu. Percival, W. K. 1975 The grammatical tradition and the rise of the vernaculars. Current Trends in Linguistics 13: 231-75. Perez-Guerra, Javier 1999 Historical English Syntax. A Statistical Corpus-Based Study on the Organisation of Early Modern English Sentences. München: LINCOM Europa.

Bibliography

287

Peters, Hans 1992 Zur Entwicklung der englischen Relativpronomina: Typologische und soziolinguistische Aspekte. Nowele 20: 89-142. Pintzuk, Susan, George Tsoulas and Anthony Warner (eds.) 2000 Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Plessow, Max 1967 Reprint. Geschichte der Fabeldichtung in England bis zu John Gay . Nebst Neudruck von Bullokars ,, Fables of Aesop" 1585, „Booke at large" 1580, „Bref Grammar for English" 1586 and „Pamphletfor Grammar" 1586. New York: Johnson. Original edition, Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1906. Poldauf, Ivan 1948 On the History of some Problems of English Grammar before 1800. Prag: FFUK. Preusler, W. 1938 Keltischer Einfluß im Englischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 56: 178-191. Priscianus 1981 Reprint. Prisciani Grammatici Caesariensis Institutionum Grammaticorum Libri XVIII. [3 vols.]. Hildesheim: Olms. Original edition, Leipzig: Teubner, 1855-1859. Pyles, Thomas and John Algeo 1993 Reprint. The Origins and Development of the English Language. 4th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Original edition, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963. Quirk, Randolph 1971 Shakespeare and the English Language. In: Kenneth Muir and S. Schoenbaum (eds.), A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies, 6782. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik 1972 Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman. 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 1988 Variation and historical linguistics. A survey of methods and concepts. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 89: 136-154. 1991 The Noun Phrase in Early Sixteenth-Century English. A Study Based on Sir Thomas More's Writings. Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique. 1996a Apparent time. In: Terttu Nevalainen and Helena RaumolinBrunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 93-109. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.

288

Bibliography

1996b

Historical sociolinguistics. In: Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 11-37. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. 1997 Incorporating sociolinguistic information into a diachronic corpus of English. In: Raymond Hickey, Merja Kytö, Ian Lancashire and Matti Rissanen (eds.), Tracing the Trail of Time. Proceedings from the Second Diachronic Corpora Workshop, 105-117. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. 1970 Social factors and pronominal change in the seventeenth century: The Civil-War effect? In: Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier (eds.), Advances in English Historical Linguistics (1996), 361-388. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2000 WHICH and THE WHICH in Late Middle English: free variants? In: Taavitsainen, Irma, Terttu Nevalainen, Paivi Pahta, Matti Rissanen, Norman F. Blake, Hans-Jyrgen Diller, Laurel J. Brinton and Nikolaus Ritt (eds.), Placing Middle English in Context, 209-250. Berlin/NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena and Terttu Nevalainen 1994 Social conditioning and diachronic language change. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 325-338. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997 Social embedding of linguistic changes in Tudor English. In: Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, 701-717. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena and Arja Nurmi 1997 Dummies on the Move: prop-one and affirmative do in the 17th Century. In: Terttu, Nevalainen and Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 395—417. Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique. Reinhardt, Mechthild and Wolfgang Thiele (eds.) 1997 Grammar and Text in Synchrony and Diachrony: In Honour of Gottfried Graustein. Frankfurt: Vervuert. Reitz, Bernhard and Sigrid Rieuwerts (eds.) 2000 Anglistentag 1999 Mainz. Proceedings. WVT, Trier. Reuter, Ole 1937 Some notes on the origin of the relative combination 'the which'. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 38: 146-188. 1938 On continuative relative clauses in English. Societas Scientiarum Fennica: Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 9.3: 1-61.

Bibliography

289

Rissanen, Matti 1984 The choice of relative pronouns in 17th century American English. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Syntax, 417^435. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1985 Periphrastic do in affirmative statements in early American English. Journal of English Linguistics 18: 163-183. 1986 Variation and the study of historical syntax. In: David Sankoff (ed.), Diversity and Diachrony, 97-109. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1989 Three problems connected with the use of diachronic corpora. ICAME Journal 13: 16-19. 1991a On the history of that!zero as object clause links in English. In: Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, 272-289. London / New York: Longman. 1991b Spoken language and the history of r/o-periphrasis. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English Syntax, 321-342. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1992 The diachronic corpus as a window to the history of English. In: Jan Svartvik (ed.), Directions in Corpus Linguistics, 185-205. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1994a The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. In: Merja Kytö, Matti Rissanen and Susan Wright (eds.), Corpora across the centuries. Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronic Corpora, 73-79. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. 1994b The position of not in Early Modern English questions. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 339-348. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1998 Towards an integrated view of the development of English: Notes on clausal linking. In: Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier (eds.), Advances in English Historical Linguistics (1996), 389—406. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1999a Isn't it? or is it not? On the order of postverbal subject and negative particle in the history of English. In: Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Gunnel Tottie and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Negation in the History of English, 189-205. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1999b Syntax. In: Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume 3: 1476-1776, 187-331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999c Language of law and the development of Standard English. In: Irma Taavitsainen, Gunnel Melchers, Päivi Pahta (eds.), Writing in Nonstandard English, 189-203. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

290

Bibliography

1999d

On writing a history of English: variation and change. European English Messenger 8: 9-12. 2000a The world of English historical corpora: from Casdmon to the computer age. Journal of English Linguistics 28: 7-20. 2000b Standardization and the language of early English statutes. In: Susan Wright (ed.), The Development of Standard English, 1300-1800. Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rissanen, Matti, Merja Kytö and Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.) 1997a Grammaticalization at Work. Studies of Long-term Developments in English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997b English in Transition. Corpus-based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rissanen, Matti, Merja Kytö and Minna Palander-Collin (eds.) 1993 Early English in the Computer Age. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rissanen, Matti, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.) 1992 History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Robins, Robert H. 1957 Dionysius Thrax and the Western grammatical tradition. Transactions of the Philological Society 55: 67-106. 1973 Theory-orientation versus data-orientation: A recurrent theme in linguistics. Historiographia Linguistica I: 11—26. 1986 The evolution of English grammar books since the Renaissance. In: Gerhard Leitner (ed.), The English Reference Grammar, 292-306. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1994 William Bullokar's Bref Grammar for English: text and context. In: Günther Blaicher and Brigitte Glaser (eds.), Anglistentag 1993 Eichstätt: Proceedings, 18-31. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Romaine, Suzanne 1982 Socio-historical linguistics. Its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenbach, Anette 2002 Genitive Variation in English. Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rosenbach, Anette und Dieter Stein 2000 On the history of the s-genitive. In: Ricardo Bermudez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg and C.B. Cully (eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies. A Dialogue from the Tenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 183-210. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bibliography

291

Rosenbach, Anette and Letizia Vezzosi 2000 Genitive constructions in Early Modern English: new evidence from a corpus analysis. In: Rosanna Sornicola, Erich Poppe, Ariel ShishaHalevy and Paola Como (eds.), Stability, Variation and Change of Word-Order-Patterns over Time, 285-307. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rosier, Margarete 1919/20 Veraltete Wörter in der Grammatica Anglicana von 1594. Englische Studien 53: 168-195. Ross, C.H. 1893 The absolute participle in Middle and Modern English. PMLA 8: 245-302. Rusch, Jürg 1972 Die Vorstellung vom Goldenen Zeitalter der englischen Sprache im 16., 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Bern: Francke. Ryden, Mats 1966 Relative Constructions in Early Sixteenth Century English. With Special Reference to Sir Thomas Elyot. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells. 1970 Coordination of Relative Clauses in Sixteenth Century English. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1979 An Introduction to the Historical Study of English Syntax. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 1980 Syntactic variation in a historical perspective. In: Sven Jacobson (ed.), Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation, 37-45. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksells. 1983 The emergence of who as relativizer. Studia Linguistica 37: 127— 134. 1984 The study of eighteenth century English syntax. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Syntax, 509-520. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1991 The be/have variation with intransitives in its crucial phases. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English Syntax, 343-354. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ryden, Mats and Sverker Brorström 1987 The Be/Have Variation with Intransitives in English. With Special Reference to the Late Modern Period. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Ryden, Mats, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Merja Kytö (eds.) 1998 A Reader in Early Modern English. Frankfurt: Lang. Sachs, C.E.A. 1858 Studien zur Geschichte der englischen Grammatik. (Herrigs) Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen 23: 406—414. Saito, Toshio, Junsaku Nakamura, Shunji Yamazaki and Geoffrey Leech (eds.) 2002 English Corpus Limguistics in Japan. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

292

Bibliography

Sankoff, David (ed.) 1986 Diversity and Diachrony. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Scheler, Manfred 1982 Shakespeares Englisch. Berlin: Schmidt. Schendl, Herbert 1996 The 3rd plural present indicative in Early Modern English - variation and linguistic contact. In: Derek Britton (ed.), English Historical Linguistics 1994. Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 143—160. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1997 Morphological variation and change in Early Modern English: my/mine, thy / thine. In: Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, 179-191. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Scheurweghs, G. & E. Vorlat 1959 Problems of the history of English grammar. English Studies 40: 134-143. Schmidt, Alexander 1971 Reprint. Shakespeare-Lexicon. Revised and enlarged by Gregor Sarrazin. [2 vols.] 6th ed. Berlin/New York: Dover. Original edition, Berlin: Reimer, 1874. Schneider, Edgar W. 1970 Who(m)? Constraints on the loss of case marking of wA-pronouns in the English of Shakespeare and other poets of the Early Modern English period. In: Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, 437—452. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Scholz, Sybil, Monika Klages, Evelyn Hantson and Ute Römer (eds.) 2002 Language. Context and Cognition. Papers in Honour of WolfDietrich Bald's 60fh Birthday. München: Langenscheidt-Longman. Scott, Walter (ed.) 1808 The Works of John Dryden. [18 vols.] London: William Miller. Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.) 1960 Style in Language. Cambridge, MS: M.I.T. Press. Seppänen, Aimo 1997 The genitive and the category of case in the history of English. In: Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, 193-214. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bibliography 1998

293

Problems of functional structure in some relative clauses. In: Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier (eds.), Advances in English Historical Linguistics (J996), 407-433. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2000a The genitive/possessive pronoun its. Studia Neophilologica 72: 121141. 2000b On the history of relative that. In: Ricardo Bermudez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg and C.B. Cully (eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies. A Dialogue from the Tenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 27-52. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Singhi, Rajendra 1973 Multiple negation in Shakespeare. Journal of English Linguistics 7: 50-56. Skeat, Walter W. 1888 English grammars. Notes & Queries 7th series, 6: 121-122, 243-244, 302-303. Söderlind, Johannes 1951 Verb Syntax in John Dryden 's Prose. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells. Sarensen, Knud 1957 Latin influence on English syntax. Travaux du Cercle Unguistique de Copenhague 11: 131-157. Sornicola, Rosanna, Erich Poppe, Ariel Shisha-Halevy and Paola Como (eds.) 2000 Stability, Variation and Change of Word-Order-Patterns over Time. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Spevack, Marvin 1968-1975 A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare. [8 vols.] Hildesheim: Olms. Stein, Dieter 1974 Grammatik und Variation von Flexionsformen in der Sprache des Shakespeare Corpus. München: Tuduv. 1985a Stylistic aspects of syntactic change. Folia Linguistica Historica 6: 153-178. 1985b Natürlicher syntaktischer Sprachwandel. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der englischen do-Periphrase in Fragen. München: Tuduv. 1986 Syntactic variation and change: The case of do in questions in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica 7: 121-149. 1987 At the crossroads of philology, linguistics and semiotics: Notes on the replacement of th by λ· in the third person singular in English. English Studies 5: 406-431. 1990 The Semantics of Change. Aspects of the Evolution of do in English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

294 1991

Bibliography

Semantic aspects of syntactic change. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English Syntax, 355-366. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1994 The expression of deontic and epistemic modality and the subjunctive. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 403^411. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997 Relative clauses in Thomas Browne: On the way to standard syntax. In: Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, 385-393. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1999 On the history of inversion in English. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semantic Analysis 4: 37-60. Stein, Dieter and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.) 1994 Towards a Standard English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Stein, Gabriele 1999 Α lö^century description of vernacular word-formation. In: Uwe Carls and Peter Lucko (eds.), Form, Function and Variation in English. Studies in Honour of Klaus Hansen, 49-63. Frankfurt: Peter. Stetter, Christian 1996 Strukturale Sprachwissenschaft (20. Jahrhundert). In: Tilman Borsche (ed.), Klassiker der Sprachphilosophie. Von Piaton bis Noam Chomsky, 4 2 1 ^ 4 5 . München: Beck. Stockwell, Robert 1984 On the history of the verb-second rule in English. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical Syntax, 575-592. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Strang, Barbara 1970 History of English. London: Methuen. Sundby, Bertil 1995 English Word-formation as Described by English Grammarians 1600-1800. Oslo: Novus Forlag. Svartvik, Jan (ed.) 1992 Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Sweet, Henry 1968 Reprint. A New English Grammar Logical and Historical. [2 vols.] Oxford: Clarendon. Original edition, Oxford: Clarendon, 1891. Taavitsainen, Irma 1995 Interjections in Early Modern English. From imitation of spoken to conventions of written language. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 439-465. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Bibliography 1999

295

Dialogues in Late Medieval and Early Modern English medical writing. In: Andreas H. Jucker, Gerd Fritz and Franz Lebsanft (eds.), Historical Dialogue Analysis, 243-268. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 2001 Language history and the scientific register. In: Diller, Hans-Jyrgen and Manfred Görlach (eds.), Towards a History of English as a History of Genres, 185-202. Heidelberg: Winter. Taavitsainen, Irma and Päivi Pahta 1997 Corpus of Early English medical writing 1375-1750. ICAME Journal 21: 71-78. Taavitsainen, Irma, Gunnel Melchers, Päivi Pahta (eds.) 1999 Writing in Nonstandard English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Taavitsainen, Irma, Terttu Nevalainen, Päivi Pahta, Matti Rissanen, Norman F. Blake, Hans-Jyrgen Diller, Laurel J. Brinton and Nikolaus Ritt (eds.) 2000 Placing Middle English in Context. Berlin/NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter. Taglicht J. 1970 The genesis of the conventional rules for the use of shall and will. English Studies 51: 193-213. Taylor, Estelle W. 1972 Shakespeare's use of .s1 endings of the verbs to do and to have in the first folio. CLA Journal 16: 214-231. 1976 Shakespeare's use of eth and es endings of verbs in the first folio. CLA Journal 19: 4 3 7 ^ 5 7 . The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Diachronic and Dialectal 1991 Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid 1982 Double negation and eighteenth-century English grammars. Neophilologus 66: 278-285. 1985 Ί will be drowned and no man shall save me': The conventional rules for shall and will in eighteenth-century English grammars. English Studies 66: 123—42. 1987 The Auxiliary Do in Eighteenth-century English. Dordrecht: Foris. 1990a Exemplification in eighteenth-century English grammars. Adamson, Sylvia, Vivian Law, Nigel Vincent and Susan Wright (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Cambridge, 6-9 April 1987, 481-496. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1990b The origin and development of periphrastic auxiliary do: a case of destigmatisation. Nowele 16: 3-52. 1994 Standard and non-standard pronominal usage in English, with special reference to the eighteenth century. In: Dieter Stein and Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English, 217-242. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

296 2000

Bibliography

Sociohistorical linguistics and the observer's paradox. In: Kastovsky, Dieter and Arthur Mettinger (eds.), The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics, 441-461. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Gunnel Tottie and Wim van der Wurff (eds.) 1999 Negation in the History of English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Tops, Guy A.J., Devriend, Betty and Geukens, Steven (eds.) 1999 Thinking English Grammar: To Honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus. Leuven: Peeters. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1972 A History of English Syntax. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. 1999 A historical overview of complex predicate types. In: Laurel J. Brinton and Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English, 239-260. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Trnka, Bohumil 1930 On the Syntax of the English Verb from Caxton to Dryden. Prag: Jednota Ceskoslovenskych Matematikü a Fysikii. Unterbeck, Barbara, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen and Mirja Saari (eds.) 2000 Gender in Grammar and Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Van den Eynden Morpeth, Nadine 1999 Jack Sprat that and the humble w/z-relatives: re-constructing social contexts by means of commercial CD-ROMS. In: Guy A.J. Tops, Betty Devriend and Geukens, Steven (eds.), Thinking English Grammar: To Honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus, 113-127. Leuven: Peeters. Virtanen, Tuija 1995 'Then I saw to antique heddes': discourse strategies in Early Modern English travelogues. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 49-513. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Visser, Fredericus Th. 1969 Reprint. A Syntax of the English Language of St. Thomas More. Vaduz : Kraus. Original edition, Leuven: Librairie Universitaire Uystpruyst, 1946. 1963-1973 An Historical Syntax of the English Language. [4 vols.] Leiden: Brill. Vorlat, Emma 1964 Progress in English Grammar 1586-1735. A Study of the Development of English Grammar and of the Interdependence among the Early Grammarians. [4 vols.] Luxembourg: E.A. Pfeiffer.

Bibliography 1975

297

The Development of English Grammatical Theory 1586-1737. With Special Reference to the Theory of Parts of Speech. Leuven: Leuven University Press. 1979 Criteria of grammaticalness in 16th and 17th century English grammar. Leuvense Bijdragen 68: 129-140. Waite, Alice Vinton 1909 Ben Jonson's grammar. Modern Language Notes 24: 137-140. Wales, Kathleen M. 1983 Thou and you in Early Modern English: Brown and Gilman reappraised. Studia Linguistica 37: 107-125. Watanabe, Shoichi 1955 A Study of Ben Jonson's Grammar. Tokio. 1958 Studien zur Abhängigkeit frühneuenglischer Grammatiken von den mittelalterlichen Lateingrammatiken. Münster: Universität Münster. Watts, Richard J. 1995 Justifying grammars: A socio-pragmatic foray into the discourse community of Early English grammars. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 145-185. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Welna, Jerzy 1997 Weak-to-strong: A shift in English verbs? In: Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, 215-228. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. WordCruncher. Text Indexing and Retrieval Software 1987 Version 4.1. Provo: Brigham Young University and Electronic Text Corporation. Wright, Susan 1989 Discourse, style and the rise of periphrastic do in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 71-91. Wright, Laura (ed.) 2000 The Development of Standard English, 1300-1800. Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wurff, Wim van der and Tony Foster 1997 Object-verb order in 16th century English: A study of its frequency and status. In: Raymond Hickey and Stanislaw Puppel (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, 439^453. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Zimmermann, Rüdiger 1973 Structural change in the English auxiliary system: on the replacement of be by have. Folia Linguistica 6: 107-117.

Name index

Abbott, Ε. Α., 45, 170, 198, 222-223 Algeo, John, 38, 182, 248-249 Alston, Robin, 6, 253 Altenberg, Bengt, 181-182

Dobson, Eric, 6

Bambas, Rudolph, 89 Barber, Charles, 3, 5-6, 9, 22, 34, 44-45, 55-56, 67, 71, 73-74, 78, 89-90, 102, 112, 132, 155, 158, 161, 163, 171-172, 175-176, 180, 184, 188-189, 193, 195, 202, 205, 222, 225 Bately, Janet, 178, 181, 184 Baugh, Albert, 56, 67, 89 Blake, Norman, 35, 56-57, 72, 163, 172, 182, 198,206-207, 225 Breejen, Bastiaan den, 45 Brekle, Herbert, 40-42, 143, 247 Brinton, Laurel, 194, 197 Brook, G. L., 56, 170, 184,213, 222-223 Brorström, Sverker 193 Brosnahan, L. F., 43 Bown, Roger, 66 Brunner, Karl, 45, 56, 75, 170, 174, 199, 222

Elmer, Willy, 3, 116, 118 Elsness, Johan, 185-186 Engblom, Victor, 187 Enkvist, Eric, 8, 12, 242, 246 Erdmann, Peter, 176

Cable, Thomas, 56, 67, 89 Charleston, Britta, 195, 222 Chomsky, Noam, 1 Curme, George, 205 Curtis, Stanley, 253 Dahl, Torsten, 188 Danielsson, Bror, 9, 30, 37-38, 41, 51,68, 85,97, 125, 177, 182, 190, 198,215 Dekeyser, Xavier, 174 Denison, David, 3, 187, 198, 205

Earle, J., 186 Ellegärd, Alvar, 3, 186-189, 191

Filppula, Markku, 186 Finkenstaedt, Thomas, 3, 66-67 Fisher, John, 251 Forster, Tony, 150 Franz, Wilhelm, 52, 55-56, 67, 76, 90, 113-114, 132, 161, 176, 189, 225 Friden, Georg, 193, 195 Fries, Charles Carpenter, 116, 149, 200-201

Funke, Otto 3, 8, 11, 22, 26, 51, 6263, 148, 196,210, 248 Gaaf, Wilhelm van der, 116, 118, 198-199 Gabrielson, Arvid, 9, 30, 37-38, 41, 51,68, 85,97, 125, 177, 182, 190, 198,215 Giles, Edward, 15 Gilman, Albert, 66 Görlach, Manfred, 6, 36, 43, 45, 5556, 66-67, 73, 89-90, 150, 155, 170, 175-176, 184, 186, 190, 193, 195, 199, 205,247 Graband, Gerhard, 3, 6, 11, 43-45, 52, 73, 76, 248 Hausmann, Robert, 187

Name index Herford, C. Η., 11-12,256 Hiltunen, Risto, 183-184 Holmqvist, Erik, 89-90 Hope, Jonathan, 67 Horn, Jacob, 3 Ingels, Mia, 174 Jacobsson, Bengt, 102, 155 Jespersen, Otto, 7, 4 3 ^ 4 , 71-72, 174-177, 180, 184, 195,205207, 209 Jiriczek, Otto, 10 Jones, Richard, 253 Kakietek, Piotr, 193 Kemp, J. Α., 1, 13, 25, 32-33, 35, 51,62, 68-69,81,91-92, 117, 134, 137-139, 163, 170, 190, 200,226, 245-246 Keenan, Edward and Bernhard Comrie, 174 Kenyon, John, 66 Kihlbom, Asta, 109 Kilpiö, Matti, 114 Kittredge, George, 5, 10, 248 Knorrek, Marianne, 55-57, 59, 150151, 190 Kohonen, Viljo, 158, 236 Kopytko, Roman, 116-117 Kortmann, Bernd, 225 Kroch, Antony, 187 Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara, 76 Kytö, Merja, 2, 54, 89, 155-156, 172, 176, 185, 193-194, 199 Lass, Roger, 56 Lehnert, Martin, 13, 71 Mair, Christian, 117 Marchand, Hans, 187 Meurman-Solin, Anneli, 187-189 Michael, Ian, 24, 27, 62, 77-78, 84, 87, 98, 139, 203-204,217, 252

299

Millward, Celia, 102 Mitchell, Bruce, 205 Moessner, Lilo, 72, 78, 89, 160, 179, 194, 197, 225 Moore, J. L., 253 Mosse, Fernand, 257 Mulholland, Joan, 67 Müller, Friedrich, 143 Mustanoja, Tauno, 194 Nehls, Dietrich, 195-196, 205-206 Nevalainen, Terttu, 65-66, 71-72, 77, 114, 155, 188 Nurmi, Arja, 71, 186-190, 195 Padley, G. Α., 248 Palander-Colin, Minna, 117 Partridge, A. C., 11-12, 57, 72, 74, 76-77, 89, 91, 102, 114, 125, 163-164, 176, 186, 189,213 Peitsara, Kirsi, 197 Percival, W. K., 210, 248, 253 Perez-Guerra, Javier, 149, 155 Peters, Hans, 77, 176 Poldauf, Ivan, 61 Preusler, W., 186 Quirk, Randolph, 67 Quirk et.al., 35, 50, 82, 102, 140, 162, 174, 183, 185-186, 193, 199, 203,207, 222 Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, 65-66, 71-72, 77, 164, 167-171, 174175,177, 182,251 Reuter, Ole, 76-77, 169 Rissanen, Matti, 75, 150-151, 155156, 160, 170, 172, 174-177, 182, 185, 187, 189 Robins, Robert, 242 Romaine, Suzanne, 54, 174 Rosenbach, Anette, 43, 182 Ross, C., 160 Rusch, Jürg, 6

300

Name index

Ryden, Mats, 76, 175-176, 193-194, 252 Sachs, C. Ε. Α., 72 Scheler, Manfred, 108-109, 150, 155, 158,222 Schendl, Herbert, 73, 90 Scheurweghs, G., 8 Simpson, Percy, 11-12, 256 Söderlind, Johannes, 155, 213, 222223 S0rensen, Knud, 52, 174 Stein, Dieter, 187, 189, 229 Strang, Barbara, 65, 207, 253 Sweet, Henry, 206-207, 252 Taglicht, J., 2001 Taylor, Estelle, 89 Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid 186, 188-189, 200-201 Traugott, Elisabeth, 43^44, 56, 117, 149, 182, 193-194, 229 Trnka, Bohumil, 187-188, 195, 199

Visser, Fredericus, 117, 177, 185187, 193, 197-199, 202, 204208,212 Vorlat, Emma, 8, 42, 49, 63, 139140, 142, 246, 248, 252 Wurff, Wim van der, 150 Zimmermann, Rüdiger, 194

Subject index

ablative, 3 9 ^ 2 abstract nouns, 31, 82 accusative, 39-42, 148, 150, 218220 adjective, 30,47-48, 54-60 adverb comparison, 132-133 formation patterns, 132 also, 155-158 American English, 35, 54, 177, 193 apostrophe genitive, 43 verbal morphology, 87, 95 archaism, 67, 73, 117, 167, 176, 185, 197,212 Aristotle, 19-21, 23-24, 26 article, 19, 21, 24-26, 79-83, 163, 169-173 definite/indefinite, 81 be as perfect auxiliary, 192-193 be vs.are, 113-115 because, 224, 226-227, 230-231, 234-235 before, 222, 224-225, 230, 232, 234 behove, 117-122 beseem, 118, 121 Bible language, 66, 75, 89, 149, 167, 172, 197 translation, 5, 9 Celtic influence, 185 cleft-sentences, 211-212 colloquial language. See spoken language, concord apposition-antecedent, 211,217

noun-adjective, 211, 214-216 relative pronoun-antecedent, 211, 216-217 subject-predicate, 211-214 conditional clause negative conditional clause with but (=if not), 161 without i f , 153-155 Corpus of Early English Correspondance (CEEC), 3, 71, 189-190 dare, 111, 219 dative, 39-42, 220 defective verbs, 87, 116 deponents, 86-87 dialect, 35, 67, 71-72, 76, 90-91, 176, 193,202,212 Donatus, 18, 63, 84, 91 fifo-periphrasis distribution pattern, 188-190 grammaticalization, 188 origin, 186-187 double negation. See multiple negation durst, 111 economy, 6, 194, 225 ere, 222, 224-225, 227, 230, 232, 234 French influence, 66, 76, 78, 170, 174-175, 182, 186, 193 functional amalgamation. See relative clause functional load, 174, 194, 197, 225 future shall vs. will, 198-200

302

Subject index

genitive distribution patterns of {-s}, 42 group genitive, 43 /n's-genitive. See possessive dative possessive dative (the King his palace), 45-47 split genitive, 43 synthetic vs. analytic, 180-181 use of apostrophe, 43^14 zero-morpheme, 44 grammaticalization (/«-periphrasis, 188 impersonal verbs, 117 Guarino Veronese, 210 Helsinki Corpus description of the Helsinki Corpus, 2-3 corpus analyses, 46, 57-59, 70 71,75,77, 96, 114, 117, 119123, 153-154, 156-158, 160, 164-167, 172, 177, 182, 189, 193, 195-198,202, 204, 206, 208-210,235 here, 155-158 hisself, 79 Humanism, 4-5 i f , 106-108, 222, 225, 227-228, 231-235. See also conditional clause, imperative with do, 102 with let, 102 with personal pronoun, 102 impersonal verbs frequency, 121-122 grammaticalization, 117 historical development, 116-117 impersonal vs. personal constructions, 120-122

impersonal vs. personal verbs, 86-87 inventory, 119-121 "real" vs. "quasi-impersonal" verbs, 118 semantic classes, 118 in case, 222, 224-225, 231-235 inkhorn controversy, 253 interrogative pronouns, 62, 64, 7980, 174-175 intransitive verbs, 86-87, 189, 220 perfect with be, 192-193 inversion within the noun phrase (many a time/dear my brother), 171 of subject and predicate after sentence-initial adverbs, 155-158 in conditional clauses without i f , 153-155 in questions, 152-153 Irish English, 185 irk, 116-118, 122 Latin influence, 4-6, 23, 25, 28, 37, 39^12, 49, 51-52, 54, 62-63, 66, 77, 82, 87-88, 98-110, 127, 130131, 135-137, 140, 143, 170, 174, 184, 194-195, 203-204, 210-218, 225-226 list, 117 methinks, 117, 119-121, 123 modal auxiliaries, 86, 111-113 More, Thomas, 117, 164, 167-170, 177, 179, 182 mought, 111 multiple negation, 150-151 mine. See possessive pronouns. neither, 151, 155-157 never, 151, 155-157 nor, 151, 155-157 northern influence, 76, 88-91, 114

Subject index noun: plural formation distribution pattern, 33-35 -en, 35-36 i-mutation, 35 voicing of fricatives, 36-37 zero-morpheme, 37 noun phrase adjective as head, 162-163 with postmodification, 163167 the highest he, 163-164 this your house, 171-173 now, 155, 157 object clause omission of that, 160-161 participle constructions, 159-160, 183 passive action vi. state passive, 198 agent, 197-198 gei-passive, 197 ^eve-passive, 197 indirect passive, 198 prepositional passive, 199 patriotism, 4 - 6 perfect auxiliary be, 192-193 personal pronouns thou/you, 66-70 you/ye(e), 65-70 plagiarism, 124, 143- 146, 239-240, 243-244 poetic language, 45, 56, 73, 76, 8 9 90, 97, 149-150, 158-159, 170, 176, 186, 197-198 Port-Royal grammar, 241-242, 247 possessive dative. See genitive, possessive pronouns its, 71-72 my/mine, 72-74 prepositional phrase, 39-42, 164165,181-182

303

prepositional verbs, 178, 183-184 prestige, 5-6, 174, 177, 242 printing press, 5 Priscian, 24, 48, 63, 86, 91, 139 progressive, 195-196 provided, 224-225, 230-232, 234 quasi-impersonal verbs. See impersonal verbs. readership, influence of, 143 reflexive pronouns, 79 Reformation, 4 - 5 regional variety. See dialect, register, 46, 56, 71, 89, 97, 167, 190 See also poetic language, archaism, Bible, spoken language relative clause antecedent, 167, 174-181, distribution pattern of pronouns, 174-181 functional amalgamation, 179 historical overview, 174-176 relative pronouns but, 78 that, 76, 78, 165-167, 174175,177-181 the which, 76-78 which 76-78, 166-167, 174175,177-181 who/whose/whom, 76-78, 166, 174-175,177-181 zero element, 77, 176-177 restrictive/non-restrictive relative clause, 174-177 religious language. See Bible language. Renaissance, 4 - 5 Royal Society, 13, 21 rue, 116, 118-119 seeing that, 224, 231, 234 seem, 117-119, 121-123 Shakespeare, 35, 43, 55-56, 67,

304

Subject index

71,75-78, 113, 149-150, 161, 164, 176, 180, 195, 209,213,225 since, 224, 230-231, 234 50, 155-158 spelling systems Bullokar, 7 Butler, 10-11 Gill, 10 split genitive. See genitive, spoken language, 45, 56, 60, 67, 71, 74, 89, 114, 160, 172, 176, 187, 189, 207 standard language, 66, 90, 114, 150, 176, 202 subject omission of the subject, 149 subject-predicate concord, 211214 subjunctive, 106-109, 222-236 then, 155-158 therefore, 155, 157 thou. See personal pronouns. Thrax, Dionysius, 19, 84, 130, 135 thus, 155-157 transitive verbs, 148, 150-151, 189, 220 unless, 222, 224-225, 227, 230, 232, 234,236

verbal morphology 2nd p.sg. ~(e)st, 88 3rd p.sg. -eth vs. -s, 88-90 plural endings, 90-91 verbal noun, 167-168 verse. See poetic language vocative, 39-42 when, 224, 230-231, 234-235 whether, 222, 224-226, 230, 232, 234-235 yon(ne), yonder, 74-75 you-ye(e). See personal pronouns.

Topics in English Linguistics Edited by Bernd Kortmann and Elizabeth Closs Traugott Mouton de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 1 Niels Davidsen-Nielsen, Tense and Mood in English. A Comparison with Danish. 1990. 2 Historical English Syntax. Edited by Dieter Kastovsky. 1991. 3 English Computer Corpora. Selected Papers and Research Guide. Edited by Stig Johansson and Anna-Brita Stenström. 1991. 4 Donka Minkova, The History of Final Vowels in English. The Sound of Muting. 1991. 5 Lia Korrel, Duration in English. A Basic Choice, Illustrated in Comparison with Dutch. 1991. 6 Andreas H. Jucker, Social Stylistics. Syntactic Variation in British Newspapers. 1992. 7 Ken-ichi Takami, Preposition Stranding. From Syntactic to Functional Analyses. 1992. 8 Bas Aarts, Small Clauses in English. The Nonverbal Types. 1992. 9 New Directions in English Language Corpora. Methodology, Results, Software Developments. Edited by Gerhard Leitner. 1992. 10 History of Englishes. New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Edited by Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen and Irma Taavitsainen. 1992. 11 Early English in the ComputerAge. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. Edited by Matti Rissanen, Meqa Kytö and Minna Palander-Collin. 1993. 12 Towards a Standard English: 1600-1800. Edited by Dieter Stein and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade. 1993. 13 Studies in Early Modern English. Edited by Dieter Kastovsky. 1994. 14 Ronald Geluykens, The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English. Evidence from Conversational Repair. 1994. 15 Traute Ewers, The Origin of American Black English. Β c-Forms in the HOODOO Texts. 1996. 16 Ilse Depraetere, The Tense System in English Relative Clauses. A CorpusBased Analysis. 1996. 17 Michiko Ogura, Verbs in Medieval English. Differences in Verb Choice in Verse and Prose. 1996. 18 Spanish Loanwords in the English Language. A Tendency towards Hegemony Reversal. Edited by Felix Rodriguez Gonzales. 1996. 19 Laurel J. Brinton, Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. 1996.

20 Christiane Dalton-Puffer, The French Influence on Middle English Morphology. A Corpus-Based Study on Derivation. 1996. 21 Johan Elsness, The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. 1997. 22 Carl Bache and Niels Davidsen-Nielsen, Mastering English. An Advanced Grammar for Non-native and Native Speakers. 1997. 23 English in Transition. Corpus-based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles. Edited by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö and Kirsi Heikkonen. 1997. 24 Grammaticalization at Work. Studies of Long-term Developments in English. Edited by Matti Rissanen, Mega Kytö and Kirsi Heikkonen. 1997. 25 Axel Hübler, The Expressivity of Grammar. Grammatical Devices Expressing Emotion across Time. 1998. 26 Negation in the History of English. Edited by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Gunnel Tottie and Wim van der Wurff. 1998. 27 Martina Häcker, Adverbial Clauses in Scots: A Semantic-Syntactic Study. 1998. 28 Ingo Plag, Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation. 1999. 29 Gustav Muthmann, Reverse English Dictionary. Based on Phonological and Morphological Principles. 1999. 30 Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. A Cognitive Perspective. Edited by Antonio Barcelona. 2000. 31 Generative Theory and Corpus Studies. A Dialogue from 10ICEHL. Edited by Ricardo Bermudez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg and C. B. McCully. 2000. 32 Manfred G. Krug, Emerging English Modals. A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. 2000. 33 Cause - Condition - Concession - Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Edited by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann. 2000. 34 Hans-Jörg Schmid, English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition. 2000. 35 Placing Middle English in Context. Edited by Irma Taavitsainen, Terttu Nevalainen, Päivi Pahta and Matti Rissanen. 2000. 36 Michael G. Getty, The Metre of Beowulf. A Constraint-based Approach 2002. 37 Renaat Declerck and Susan Reed, Conditionals. A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. 2001. 38 Alexander Kautzsch, The Historical Evolution of Earlier African American English. An Empirical Comparison of Early Sources. 2002. 39 Studies in the History of the English Language. A Millennial Perspective. Edited by Donka Minkova and Robert Stockwell. 2002. 40 A Valency Dictionary of English. Edited by Thomas Herbst, David Heath, Ian Roe and Dieter Götz. Forthcoming.

42 Anette Rosenbach, Genitive Variation in English. Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. 2002. 43 Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Edited by Günter Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf. 2003. 44 Modality in Contemporary English. Edited by Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug and Frank Palmer. 2003. 45 Studies in the History of the English Language II: Unfolding Conversations. Edited by Anne Curzan and Kimberly Emmons. 2004.