Early Middle English Syntax 3111357805, 9783111357805

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

207

Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann. Herbert E. Brekle, Hane Jurgen Heringer, Christian Rohrer, Heinz Vater und Otmar Werner

LiloMoessner

Early Middle English Syntax

Max Niemeyer Verlag Ti.ibingen 1989

CIP- Titelaurnahme: der Deu1i;chenBibliochek

Moessner.LIia: Early Middle English syntax/ Lilo Moessner. -Tilbingcn: Niemeyer.1989 (LinguisliS,the Arbeiten~ 207) Freibura (Brcis,au). Univ.. Habil.-Schr.• 1985

NE:GT [SBN 3484-30207•0 0 Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tllbingen 1989 Das Werk einsclllicSlic:haller seincr Teile isl urhebene(htlichgescht.ltzt.Jede Verwcnufti: au6erhalb der mgen Grenzcn des Urheberrcchlsge:setus isl ohne Zustimmungdes Verlagc~

uniulassig und srrafbar. Das gilt insbesondere rur Vervielf"lltigungen. Obetsctzungen, Mikroverfilm1mgcnund die Einipeicherung 11ndVcrarbeitung in clcktronischcn Syslemcn. Prinled in Omnany. Druck: Wtillcn.Druck GmbH, Da.nnstadl

CONTENTS

Preface

Vii

Abbrev.iations I.

ix

Introduction

1

1. Research on Middle English Syntax 2. Theoretical Framework 3. Axiomatic Functionalism 4. The Place of Syntax in Axiomatic Functionalism

1 4

11

S. Syntactic

13

6. Data Base

Relations

7. Descriptive

II.

20

Method

22

Compulsory Constituents

of Early Middle English

Clauses

24

1. The Active

Verbal Syntagm

2. The Copulative 3. The Passive

III.

IV.

v,

6

24 42

Syntagrn

Syntagm

Nominal Syntagms 1. The Substantival

47 53 53

Syntagm

2. The Adjectival

Syntagm

3. The Pronominal

Syntagm

73 78

Functional Syntagms 1. The Prepositional

84

Syntagm 2. The Conjunctional Syntagrn 3. The Comparative Syntagm 4. The Genitival Syntagm

84 86 90 94

The Predicative

98

Syntagm

1. Syntactic Properties of Predicative Syntagms 1.1. Passive vs. Active Verbal vs. Copulative 1.2. Intransitive vs. Non-intransitive 1.3. one Predicative Complement vs. more than one Predicative Complement 1.4. Transitive vs. Non-tra.nsitive

2. ICs of Predicative 2.1.

Syntagrns

Nucleus

Complements 2.2.1. Copulative Complement 2.2.2. Objects 2.2.3. Verbal Complement Syntagms 3. Types of Predicative 1. Type (1):

100 104

105 108 108

2.2.

copulat1ver

Intransitive

3. 4. Type (4):

Copulative,

Non-intransitive,

3, 5. Type (5):

Copulative, Non-intransitive, more than one Predicative

3.

98

98

3. 2. Type (2): Active verbal, lntrane1t1ve 3. 3. Type {3): Passive, Intransitive

one Predicative Complement

Complement

108 108 109 115 116 117

118 118

179 119

Vi 3. 6. Type ( 6 l : Passive,

Non-1ntrans1t1ve, one Predicative Complement

3. 7. Type ( 7 1: Passive, Non-intransitive, than one Predicative

more

Complement

3. 8. Type ( 8) : Active Verbal, Non-intransitive, one Predicative Complement, Transitive 3. 9. Type { 9) = Active Verbal, Non-intransitive, one Predicative Complement, Nontransitive 3. 10. Type ( 10): Active Verbal, Non-intransitive, more than one Predicative Complement, Transitive ( 1 1 ) ; 3.11 • Type Active Verbal, Non-intrans1tive, more than one Predicative Complement, Non-transitive

VI.

121

122 123

125 128

132

The Clause

137

1. Nucleus 2. Expansions

137 137

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

Subject

Adverbial

137 147

Complement

Agent Complement

150

Functional Constructions 1. Infinitive Constructions 1.1. Infinitive Constructions without Subject 1.2* Infinitive Construction with Subject 2. Relative Constructions Con&tructions 3. Participial

168

VIII.

Conjunctive

172

IX.

Syntagms with Coordinated

x.

syntagms with Interord1nated ICs 1. The Passive Syntagm 2. The Syntactic Type ure iwil us is lod to lete 3. The Syntactic Type pe bet pe bet-

VII.

Appendix

Ii

Appendix II:

Constructions

ICs

'tense'

Position

'tense'

Position

Descriptive

157

161

184 184 184

186

188

1. verbs which only Combine with 'habben•

Ill:

155 155

179

Data Base

2. verbs which only Combine with 'ben' Appendix

155

Models

in

in

191 193

195

Bibliography

200

Name Index

209

Key Word Index

211

PREFACE

In the early 70s, Professor H. Pilch drew my attention to the lack of a comprehensive description of the syntactic structures of Middle English. After several years of collecting data, at a

point when I was about to be overwhelmed by the sheer mass of material, I met, by a very lucky coincidence, Professor Jan Mulder, then chairman of the Linguistics Department of St. Andrews university. He introduced me to his theory of Axiomatic Functionalism. During my repeated visits to St. Andrews, he took a lively interest in the progress of my work and spent many an hour with me on the discussion of individual problems. I owe him special thanks for his unfailing support over the years and also for letting me use a draft version of his latest book. Unfortunately, Foundations

of Axiomatic Functionalism appeared only after I had finished the typescript of my own book, so that the most recent developments of this theory could not be incorporated. A German version of my study was accepted as a Habilitationsschrlft at the University of Freiburg in 1985. The plan of translating it into English was shaping in my mind, when Professor w. D. Bald offered to recommend my study for publication - in EngArbeiten. As it is, a thorlish - to the editors of Linguistische ough revision of the original has resulted, requiring a reconsideration of already completed descriptions and the reorganisation

of the whole subject matter. I gratefully acknowledge the generosity and patience with which Max Niemeyer Verlag put up with more and more delays. The final version of my text profited from the scrutiny of Dr. Janet Harkness and Lorna Walker, who pointed out inconsistencies and made valuable suggestions concerning the finer points of English. The present format would not have been possible without the expertise of Hans-Gunther Borrm.ann of Freiburg Univer-

sity Computing Centre. I wish to express my gratitude

to all those mentioned above,

Viii

but also to many others on whose professional and personal support I was able to count from the f 1rst draft version to the final product. Needle!iiis to say, I alone am responsible for all inaccuracies, omissions and rnisto.kes which remain despite all precautions taken. May my shortcomings inspire others to do better and more, thus furthering our knowledge of the structure of Middle English syntax.

Freiburg,

July

1989

ABBREVIATIONS

act.verb,

act.verb.synt. adj. adj.synt. adv.compl. 'AF

active

verbal

active verbal syntagm adjective, adjectival adjectival syntagm adverbial complement Axiomatic f'Unctionalism, ist

agent comp!. app.suppl.

agent complement

compl. comp. compl. comp.conj. conj. conj .compl.

cop.

compl. comparative complement comparative conjunction conjunction# conjunctional conjunctional complement copula, copulative

dir.obj.

direct

EME

Early Middle English

cop.compl.

empha.s.

gen.comp!. gen ..synt. IC( s ~

intens. 1ntrans.

copulative

complement

object

Grammar of Contemporary genitival complement genitival syntagm

GCE

(~intr.)

ME mod.aux.

non-intrans.•

non-intr.

non-tr. obj.

Irmiediate intensifier

Constituent(s)

intransitive Middle English modal auxiliary non-intransitive non-transitive object

OE

Old English

part. part.compl.

participle, participial

part.past (=p.p.} part.pres.

functional-

appos1t1ve supplement

emphasizer Extended Predicative-Based

EPBS(s)

axiomatic

participial complement

past participle present participle

Syntagm(s)

English

X

pass. pass.cop. PBS{s) PDE

pred. pred.nucl. pred.synt.

prep. prep.obj. prep.suppl. prep.synt. pron. pron.synt. relat.

rel. comp!.

passive

passive copula Predicative-Based

prepositional prepositional

relativizer

relative

relative relative

subj.

subst.

subject substantive,

suppl.

supplement

tr ans • ( =tr • )

transitive

verbal compl.= verb.comp!.

object supplement

prepostional syntagm pronoun, pronominal pronominal syntagrn

rel.constr. rel.suppl.

subst.synt.

Syntagm(s)

Present-Day English p.redicate, predicative predicative nucleus predicative syntagm preposition, prepositional

complement

construction supplement

substantival

verbal

substantival

syntagrn

complement

I. Itfl'RODUCTION

1. Research

on ME Syntax

ME syntax is usually guistics. The designation

considered 'historical'

a branch of Historical Linis ambiguous here. It may

refer to a previous stage of a language or to its development in time. In the latter sense it is synonymous with 'diachronic', and this is the prevalling approach of traditional linguistics towards stages of a language. Traditional Historical Linguistics earlier was mainly concerned with the development of the distinctive elements of languages. Therefore many so-called historical grammars are nothing :but diachronic phonological studies. Under these conditions it is not surprising that most ME grammars and course-books do not contain a chapter on syntax at all (Bihr, Berndt, Brunner, Fisiak 1964, Fisiak 1968, Jordan, wardale, Weinstock, Wright). Chapter 14 of M. Roseborough's grammar (1938) is entitled "Accidence:Syntax", and there we find scat-

tered remarks about the obligatory ( sic 1 • status of the subject in ME, the frequency of impersonal constructions, special features of number concord, etc. Hosse apart, we have to wait until the 1970s before more extensive and systematic treatments of ME syntax appear (Dilrmilller/Utz 1974, Jones 1972, Moessner/Schaefer 1974; 21987). But they, too, are rather specialized, covering primarily synt.actic structures attested in the texts which these books include. Individual problems of MEsyntax were investigated in detail at the beginning of our century (BOhrne 1903:Temporal especially Clauses; v.d.Gaaf 1904:Impersonal Constructions; Gebhardt 1922: Subject Omission). More recent studies deal with wordorder (Harris 1964; McLeish 1969~ Swieczkowski 1962), pronominal syntax (Rennhard 196 2; Suter 1955) , relative clauses {Ki v imaa 1966 ) , modal verbs (Wallum 1973), and the syntactic functions of the elements

2

~,also,~

(Nummenmaa 1973) and~ (Rissanen 1967). Most syntactic descriptions of individual ME texts are also outdated. Only very few texts have been investigated and described

syntactically with modern linguistic methods: •Ancrene Riwle • (Humbert 1944), •ormulwnt (Palmatier 1969), 'Peterborough Chronicle' (Shores 1971), 'Cursor Mundi' ~Snouffer 1966). Due to their outstanding literary quality Chaucer' s works have also received special attention from linguists {a.o+ Fries 1985: Kerk.hot 21902; Sandved 1985).

one book only promises a survey of the whole field syntax:

Hustanoja'

checks

s

A Hi.ddle

any rash expectation,

"It

[=the book] deals

difficult otherwise."

to

English

toning

Syntax.

But

the

of ME preface

down the promise of the title,

only with constructions

the literary student {Mustanoja 1960:5)

or

of

likely

particular

to prove interest

The Table of Contents

shows that Mustanoja's approach is traditional, and rather morphological than syntactic. His subject matter is arranged according to the traditional word-classes: substantive1

tion,

verb.

pronoun,

article,

Syntactic

numeral,

adjective,

constructions

are treated

adv~rb,

preposi-

under morphologi-

cal categories, e.g. the group genitive under 'case', verbal tag1ns of the type mai curnen under the heading 'moo~', etc. explains why we look in vain for a chapter on clause types or plex sentence constructions. The second volume, which will

synThis comdeal

with these, has unfortunately not yet appeared+ The most exhaustive· diachronic treatment of English syntax is without doubt Visser•s monumenta.l work An Historical Syntax of the English Language. One of the most valuable aspects of the book is the vast anount of data which it provides. Many authors of recent studies on historical English syntax gratefully acknowledge their indebtedness to this inexhaustible data source (Traugott 1972; Faill 1977). Unfortunately it takes quite a bit of effort to

find the data relevant ment of his material

construction

contains.

to a given topic,

because Visser's

arrange-

is based on the number of verb forms which a

Thus the first

part of the book deals with

"syntactical units with one verb", the second part with "syntactical units with two verbs" and the third with "syntactical units with two and more verbs''. The author freely admits the npurely

3

formal and rnechan1stic character of this method. It has the disconcerting effect that syntactically similar constructions like he is rich and you are being naughty are not treated together, but 11

in different sections of the book (§241:§1834), whilst syntactically very different constructions like the old woman knew well to babble and dol my dear love, write to me are treated in the same volwue (§§1185, 1428), because both contain two verb forms (knew, babble; do, write) the second of which is an infinitive.

diachronic of different

study presupposes a series of synchronic studies stages of the language under consideration. Visser describes the ideal working conditions for a diachronic grammarian as follows: Any

11

Ideally

his

speaking,

disposal

the

a complete

scriptions of the state another. ·• (Visser I: v)

historical

granmarian

should

have

series of exhaustive synchronic of the language from one generation

at

deto

He is well aware that we are still far from this goal with regard to English. An exhaustive description of the syntactic structure

of PDE is provided in A Grammarof Contemporary English and A Comprehensive

Grammar of Contemporary

English.

OE at

the

other

end

of the scale has also received increased attention. Pilch included a chapter on syntax in his Al tengllsche Grammatik ( 1970) , McLaughlin published a booklet with the title Old English Synt4X. A Handbook t1983), and 1985 saw the publication of what will remain the standard reference work on the subject for many years to come, Bruce Mitchell's Old English Syntax. However, apart from Mustano-

ja's book there is a huge gap in the description of English syntax between OE on the one 4nd PDE on the other hand. As it

is a well-known

fact

that

every synchronic

description

implies a certain amount of diaehrony - the more so when a historical state of a language is concerned - it was necessary to decide remark was my which time span should be covered. Barbara Strang's guide-line here: ..Some developments

will

not

be clearly

established

within

a

century. Doubling this span gives a meaningful stretch of time, but one not too complex to account for in a reasonably unified way." (Strang 1974:21£.) Thus I restricted

my

investigation

to texts

of the 12th and 13th

4

centuries,

the period

usually

referred

to as Early Middle English

(DIE)•

2. Theoretical

Framework

Language data can be interpreted in a variety of ways by different scientific disciplines, e.g. history, literary criticism, psychology, sociology, a.nd last but not least linguistics. We do not expect that such diverse investigations will yield the same results, al though they may be based on the same data. Each discipline is interested in different aspects of the same evidence; different $olutions are sought to different problems. These solutions have the status of scientific hypotheses, which can be corroborated or falsified by the data. These hypotheses are necessarily different because of the different underlying theories. Linguistic descriptions presuppose a linguistic theory. As competitive linguistic theories, a careful there are several choice must be made, because the quality of a description depends partly upon the quality of the theory behind it. When choosing a theory, two considerations are especially important. Does it meet with the epistemological requirements of consistency, adequacy and simplicity and, is it appropriate for the set of objects which we want to describe? If a theory allows descriptive statements of the form "a is identical with b" and "a is not identical with b", it has to be rejected because it is inconsistent. If a theory excludes the description of a subset of our data, it has to be rejected because it is not adequate for our purpose. If two competitive theories rank equally high in consistency and adequacy, the simpler theory is to be preferred. of course, it is possible to modify theories .. The temptation to do so is particularly great when they lack adequacy. Modifications of one part of a theory may, however, entail undesirable consequences for other parts, consequences which may

easily be overlooked. In extreme cases such modifications sult

in a completely

useless

theory:

"Many, however, if not most are too imptttient

proper

experience,

may re-

or are not self-critical

to acquire the enough to see that

s their skill as a descriptivist is still underdeveloped. The latter ones are the most dangerous, as it 1s they that ultimately may cause the decline and downf al 1 of the theory in question. When they come across a problem which they are unable to solve, or they notice inconsistencies in their descriptions, their inclination is to blame it on the theory, rather than on their own incompetence. Then they start tinkering with the theory - but someone who is not even a good descriptivist can hardly be expected to be a good theory-builder. Even less than those persons are able to oversee all the consequences of their decisions, are they capable of foreseeing the dedescriptive scriptive consequences of changes in, or additions to, the theory. This is how theories usually die." (Mulder 1988:124 [typescript]) are Mulder touches upon a basic problem here. Very few linguists as well. Linguists with a theoretical bias trained epistemologists very often lack experience in handling empirical data. Descript1claim a theory's supev1sts on the other hand all too willingly riority over other theories withou~ attempting to demonstrate this 1 Others simply state that for their descripalleged superiority. tive purposes no linguistic theory is available, thus justifying a highly eclectic combination of different theories:

"With regard to the present study then, the conclusion 1s that no descriptive framework currently available could adequately accomodate the different grammatical aspects which appear to be crucial features of the grammar of subject less predicates. " (Elmer 1981:11}

Such eclecticism reflects yet another predicament. One theory may be perfectly adequate for the description of one set of linguistic data or for one structural level, but rather clumsy for the description of another set of data or another structural level, whereas the reverse may be true for a second theory. Which theory is then better? These considerations show how dangerous it is at the present stage of development in linguistics to make statements about the of one linguistic theory over another, let alone over superiority all others. This does not mean that descriptiv1sts are right in adopting one theory for one purpose and a different theory for an1cf. Fowler, R. An Introduction to Transformational Syntax, London 1971, p.viiz "its [=TG's] general framework has become

accepted by the majority of western linguists most reliable and revealing version of linguistic

as providing analysis. 1•

the

6

other,

or even combining

theories

at will.

In this

way we will

never arrive at a consistent description of all structural levels of one or more languages or of one structural level at different of one or more langua9es. It is quite legitimate that descrlptivlsts should choose a theory which they consider appropriate for their purpose. As long as they stick to one consistent theory, it is likely that they will produce a consistent description. Such descriptions may be challenged by others, on the basis of different theories. If they periods

are more adequate and/or simpler, they are to be preferred. But even then this would not mean that the first theory must be discarded, because it might still prove better at the end of the day when all structural levels of one or more languages have been described. It is therefore wlth no claim as to the superiority of the theory of A:xiomatlc Functionalism (AF) that I chose this the-

although I believe that this theory meets the epistemological requirements mentioned above and allows a consistent, adequate and relatively simple description of EMEsyntax. If there are shortcomings in the description which must be blamed on the theory, competing descriptions based on other theories will certainly be put forward. Even if these are ory

as

the

bettel:",

it

framework

must

still

of my description,

be proved

that

their

underlying

theories

also allow better descriptions of other sets of linguistic data and/or other structural levels. To help in the evaluation of the following description I shall outline the structure of M, concentrating on those parts of the theory which are relevant to syntax.

3. Axiomatic Functionalism theory which was developed by Jan Mulder, now professor emeritus of the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. It is in the tradition of two well-known European linguistic schools: Prague School Linguistics and GlosseAxiomatic

matics.

Functionalism

is a linguistic

Mulder acknowledges his indebtedness

to both schools ex-

plicitly1

The theory of functionalism has always struck me as extremely sound in pr 1nc1ple, scoring higher than any other school of 11

7

thought

i.n those points [==consistency, adequacy, simplicity]. may, perhaps, be Hjelmlev's theory of Glossematics, which is very well organised, very explicit, reasonably simple, and agreeably consistent." (Mulder 1980:28)

An exception

was mainly

It

Prague

School

through

person

influenced

Linguistics

after which Martinet's municative function;

the

linguistic

of

Jan

approach

Andr~ Martinet that Mulder. 2 The function

was named is the com-

essentiel le de cet instrument qu • est de eommun1cat1on... (Martinet 1980:§1.4).

une langue

"La f onct ion

est eelle

other

Although functionalists are well aware of the existence of functions of language as well, they consider them to be of

secondary importance.~

funct1onal1st

linguistic

description

con-

tains only those elements which are relevant for the act of communication. The functional aspect is thus the point of view from which the object of l1nguistics is investigated. This object itself 1s defined as "those conununication systems that have a vocal character and ar-e in general use among all hwna.n communities"'

(Martinet

1975:12).

Hjelmslev 1 s influence on AF can be seen in the terminology: The Ceneme, plereme, etc. have been taken. ove.r from Glossematics.

Glossematic relations stellation

correspond

ordination and similarities is thodology makes entation of AF AF requirement

of interdependency, determination and conto the AF relatlons of interord1nat1on, .sub-

coordination. More important than terminological the adoption of Glossematic methodology. This mepossible a high degree of stringency in the prestheory in the form of an algebraic calculus.3 The that a theory must be arbitrary and appropriate

also goes back to Hjelmslev•s Glossemat1cs. 2naoman Jakob$on und Andre Martinet kann man in der internationalen Sprachwissenschaft als die be1den bedeutendsten Erben der Prager Schule ansehen. Martinet betont ausdrilcklich die 1 funk-

tionale'

Orientierung

se1ner

eigenen

vorstellungen."

(Lepschy

1969: 85) {In international 1 inguistics Roman Jakobson and Andre Martinet can be called the most important heirs of Prague School

Linguistics. Andre Martinet explicitly point of view of his own approach.) 3cf.

Mulder 1980:chapt.4

stresses

the

1

functiona1•

8

In his theory of AF Mulder distinguishes a signum-theory (origin.ally called theories:

three parts

or sub-

sign-theory),

which status of linguistic objectsJ a system, which covers phonology and grammar; a

defines the ontological theory ( or systemology) theory of semantics. 4 Phonology is phonotactics, and paraphonotact1cs,

(:morphology),

subdivided into phonematics, grammar into pleremat1cs (-syntax), and paraplerotactics (=pa-

plerotactics

rasyntax). This means that in the present context only the systemtheory is relevant. Before

describing

the

structure

of the theory I would like to stress a feature which makes AF unique among the various kinds of present-day linguistics. I am referring to the rigorous separThis may seem trivial, but none ation of theory and description. of the other current approaches to linguistics seem to bother about such trivialities. Consequently their descriptions cannot be properly evaluated, because the criteria on which an evaluation could be based are not specified. Descriptions which are based on against the theory and against the theory of AF can be evaluated the data, because they are viewed as "the application of a particular linguistic theory to a selected field of linguistic phenom-

ena11 (Mulder 1980:17) .. The theory of AF contains terms and statements. The statements are of three different kinds. AXioms, that kind of statements which gave AF its name, are neither true nor false; by definition they are not subject to refutation. They have to be accepted as starting-points of deductive theories, cf. The initial justification of these statements is that they seem reasonable and acceptable to others, and their further justification is that they are assumed, in the absence of refutation, to be appropriate ... (Mulder 1980:23) •

1

Axioms imply theorems, the second kind of statements. The terms which are used in axioms are variables, i.e. terms which have no meanings at all at the outset, but which receive meanings through definitions, the third kind of statements. Then they a.re no longer variables, but defined terms. While attributing meanings to var14This part of the theory was developed by Mulder's collegue Sandor Hervey, cf. Hervey, Sandor. Axiomatic Semantics, Edinburgh 1979.

.

9

ables, definitions may introduce new variables into the theory. The process of defining goes on until all variables have become defined terms. Without circularity this is only possible in a theory which also contains primitive terms, i.e. terms whlch need not be defined, because they are understood intuitively. AF may indeed find a weak point of the theory here. of primitive terms as a third kind of terms {beside

Critics

of

The inclusion

defined terms and variables) introduces a certain amount of subjectivity into the theory. Mulder is aware of this problem, and that is why he makea every effort to keep the subj ect1 ve, and there£ ore intuitive, component of his theory as small as possible, cf.

"By pushing this intuitive interpretation as far back as possible, we are removing much of its harmfulness. • (Mulder 1980: 1

25).

Nevertheless he considers a subjective theory which is not circular:

residue unavoidable

in any

"We may still take this state of affairs to be, scientifically speaking, deplorable, but we have to live with it. our system of definitions will either be circular, or it will contain this intuitive residue of primitive terms, just as a theory that does not contain primitive, i.e. intuitive statements, namely the axioms, will always be a circular theory.n ,Mulder 1980125) The structure of AF as sketched lowing diagram:

above is represented

in the fol-

AF

terms---------

/

primitive

terms

""

-----statements

/

~

defined terms axioms tneorems variables f- - - - meanings - - -.clef initions

Some definitions assign meanings to variables which denote processes, others to variables which denote entities. The latter correspond to descriptive entities which stand in a relation of isomorphism to classes of speech phenomena. The descriptive entities are called models; the corresponding theoretical terms are called theoretical models or meta-models.

10

Like any scientific theory AF lays claim to the attributes consistency, adequacy, and simplicity. Being hypotheses, these requirements cannot be part of the theory itself. They have the status of meta-hypotheses because they are hypotheses about the theory. Descriptions which are based on the theory of AF neither contain axioms nor definitions. The statements they contain have the status of scientific hypotheses. One of their most important properties is that they must be refutable by the speech phenomena they are meant to describe. Descriptive statements are about descriptive models1 their constituents, and their relations. They, too, must meet the requirements of consistency, adequacy, and simplicity. Descriptions are inconsistent not only when their hypotheses contradict each other, but also when they are not interrelated. Inconsistency of a description may imply inadequacy, because speech phenomena cannot adequately be described by contradictory

hypotheses.

Irrespective

of

other

qualities,

hypotheses

have to be rejected or at least mod1f 1ed if they are refuted by the speech phenomena. Hypotheses about the grammatical structure of the data must also be checked against their meaning, et.

"grammatical

know to

be

statements

. . . the

.•• have to be consistent

meaning

of

the

construction

with what we in question"

(Mulder 1980:13). Some statements of descriptions resemble the definitions in the theory. This similarity is only superficial; it does not mean that these descriptive statements are definitions. They introduce useful mnemonic labels (e.g. 'subject', 'transitive', 'prepositional syntAgm•, etc.) for language-specific constructions.

The methodology used in AF can be characterized as hypothetico-deductive. AF descriptions are deductive insofar as their statements are derived from the theory (of AF) on the one, and from the data on the other hand. They are hypothetical because their statements are presented as hypotheses. It is especially the deductive component of the methodology He rejects any kind of speculawhich Mulder considers important. tion and inductivism, speculation being non-scientific and inductivism leading to circularity. A.s inductiv1sm exclusively relies on the observation of data, its statements - however general and

11

abstract they may be - must remain part of the description. only by an arbitrary act can they be made statements of the theory. Such a theory is useless because its application to a field of

speech phenomena yields exactly the descriptive statements which the theory started with.5 also be based on a deThe underlying theory must therefore ductive methodology. It follows that it will contain a limited set of primitive terms and statements from which all other statements can be derived by logical operations. It is independent of any specific language, but it provides the framework for the description of any set of language data.

4. The Place of Syntax in Axiomatic Functionalism The structure of the system-theory of AF is based on Martinet's tenet of the double articulation of language. That part which deals with the distinctive elements is called phonology, the other part, which deals with the significative elements is grammar. For Martinet it is this double articulation which accounts for the economy and the efficiency of language. Mulder,

however, argues that these qualities also depend on the fact that on both levels the arrangement of the elements may be relevant, i.e. they ma.y stand in ordering relations. The English word -sick, for example, can be analysed on the second level of articulation as a sequence of the phonemes /s/, Ii/,. /k/. That the arrangement of these phonemes is relevant can be dem,onstrated by reversing their order. The language sign~ (/kts/J has a very different meaning from the sign sick (/s1k/). On the first level of articulation the relevance of the arrangement of elements can be demonstrated by the English syntagrn dog show. The permutation of its constituents yields a syntagm with a completely different meaning, show dog. The possibility of ordering relations leads Mulder to a redefinition of the principle of the double articulation of language: '

5cf.

Mulder 1980:9f.

12

"As, however, the possibility

of ordered combinations, as opi.e. unordered, ones, exhibits the ultimate level of efficiency, I have defined articulation so as to refer to syntax and phonotactics only ••, posed to the possibility

tMulder

of only simultaneous,

1980~147)

Consequently, both the phonology and the grammar part of AF contain a component which deals with the respective elements as simultaneous bundles of constituents, and c1 component which deals with the combination of the respective elements into bigger units. Phonematics treat~ phonemes as simultaneous bundles of distinctive features, phonotactics deals with their combination into phonotagms (=ordered sets of phonemes}. Pleremat1cs is a.bout plerernes as simultaneous bundles of monemes, 6 plerotactics is concerned with the combination of pleremes into syntagrns. 7 The notions 'plerematics' and 'plerotactics' roughly correspond to the traditional terms 'morphology' and 'syntax'. As a matter of fact Mulder himself very often uses the traditional terminology, althouqh his definition excludes for example the treatment of compounds in morphology/plerematics. I am going to use the traditional term 'syntax' with the definition given for 'plerotactics'. The relation between the • -atics • and the •-tactics' components is that the biggest entities of the first components are at the same time the smallest entities of the second components. Phonemes are on the border-line between phonemat1es and phonotactlcs, pleremes on that between plerematics and plerotactics. Phonology and grammar contain a third component, the "para• component. Paraphonotactics accounts for the co-existence of phonotagms and suprasegmental features, paraplerotactics (or parasyntax) for the co-existence of syntagms and suprasegmental features .. The relation

between

the

'tactic'

and

the

1

paratactic

1

levels is different

from that between the 'atic" and the 'tactic' because the output of the 'tactic' levels, phonotagms and

levels syntagms,

furnishes

only part

of the input of the paratactic

lev-

61n functionalist terminology monemes are the smallest significative elements, cf. Martinet 1960:§1.9. 70ne would expect the combinations of pleremes to be called plerotagms to keep up the terminological parallelism between phonology

and grammar.

not necessary.

Mulder

avoids

coining

new terms

when it

is

13

els. The place of syntax in the system-theory in the following diagram:

of AF is represented

system-theory phonology/ phonLcs

~rammar

phitactics

plerema!ics lple~ctics paraplerotactics

paraphonotactics

5. Syntactic

{ syntax)

Relations

In AF syntagms are analysed into their immediate constituents (=ICs) step by step. The relations which hold between !Cs are tactic relations. 8 The syntagm many very old boo.ks contains the ICs many, very old and books. They stand in tactic relations to each other. The IC books can be substituted by elements like houses,

hats,

syntactic

dogs,

structure

etc. of

These the

substitutions

syntagm.

do not The substitutable

change

the

elements

stand in the paradigmatic relation of cornmutation.9 The descriptive models of AF are defined by their ICs and the relations which hold hE!tween them. Syntactic relations are therefore very important terms of the syntactic component of the theory. relations. Syntactic relations are a subset of grammatical Some of them hold between elements of the same syntagm (=syntagmatic relations), others between elements of different syntagms (=paradigmatic relations). The only relevant paradigmatic relation for is commutation. It holds between ICs which are substitutable each other in a syntagm. In the syntagm he killed the lion the IC he commutes with syntagms like my grandfather, Charles~ or the

extravagant

fellow who told everybod~ he was a vegetarian.

Syntagmatic syntactic relations are either tactic or nontactic, either direct or indirect. Tactic relations hold between 8cf.

Mulder 1980:45,

def.7c3

9cf.

Mulder 1980:44,

de£.

7a2

14

ICs; syntagmatic relations are non-tactic.

Direct

between constituents

relations

that are not ICs

are those which are not med.iated

by other constituents .. 1O The features tact 1c or non-tactic and direct or indirect are properties of all syntagmatic relations. Therefore syntagmatic relations can be tactic and direct, tacti.c

and indirect, The following

non-tactic and direct, or non-tactic diagram maps the system of syntactic

syntactic

relations

" / " \ I\ syntagmatic

paradi~

direct

commutation

and indirect. relations:

I

tactic

non-tactic

indirect

tactic

non-tactic

In the syntagm man~ very old books direct tactic relations hold between many and books, very old and books, verr and old. There is one direct, non-tactic relation, namely between old and books. It 19 direct because 1t is not established via another constituent, and it is non-tactic because the constituents old and books are not ICs of the same syntagm; books is an IC of the syntagm many very old books, old is not, whereas old is an IC of the syntagm very old to which books does not belong at all. The relation between many and very old is indirect and tactic~ many and very old are ICs of the syntagm many very old books, their relation is mediated by the constituent books. Indirect, non-tactic relations hold between man:k: and old, man~ and very, very and books. In the first two examples the relation is via books, in the last via old. The constituents are not ICs of the same syntagm. It is quite obvious that indirect, non-tactic relations are irrelevant for syntactic analysis. The structure of a syntagm is best revealed by its tactie relations, especially by its direct tactic relations. They are either symmetrical or asymm.etrical. Symmetrical relations are called relations of simultaneity, 11 asymmetrical ones ordering relations. Subordination and superor10cf. 11cf.

Mulder 1980:52,

def,15

Mulder 1980:44,

defs.

6a, 6b.

15

dinat!on

are asymmetrical,

coordination

and interordination symmetrical relations. Subordination holds between ICs of unilateral functional dependency, i.e. the function of one IC is dependent on that of the other, but not vice ve.rsa. 12 The functionally dependent IC is subordinated to the functionally independent IC. This implies, of course, that the functionally independent IC is superordinated to the dependent IC. Usually the relation is stated in term.s of subordination. In the syntagm the books the definite article the is subordinated to the substantive books. The function of books is independent of that of the definite article; the function of the definite article, however, depends on the function of books. In the environment ••• are expensive the substantive books has the function of a subject whether it is accompanied by the definite article or not, cf. the books are expensive, books are expensive. The function of the can be described as subject modi-

fier. In the environment he bought ... the substantive books has the function of an object whether it is accompanied by~ or not, cf. he bought books~ he bought the books. The function of the definite article can be described as object modifier in this context. terms

In AF the function of the ICs of a syntagm is described in of positions in a descriptive model. Functionally independ-

ent rcs are said to stand 1n nuclear position, they are called dependent ICs stand in peripheral posi'nucle1·. 13 Functionally tions. If they commute with zero, they are called •expansions•, 14 In otherwise they are called 'bound entities' or 'actualisers•. the syntagm the books the definite article is an expansion, books

is the nucleus. In AF the relation subordination is symbolised by an arrow with its head pointing towards the nucleus, e.g. the-> books Interordination is a symmetrical relation between ICs which

mutually depend on each other for their 12cf. Mulder 1980!48,

def.

11a

13cf.

Mulder 1980:50,

def.

73a

14cf. Mulder 1980:50,

defs.

15cf. Mulder 1980;49,

def.

13b-d 11c

function. 15 In the syntagm

16

the more the better the ICs the more and the better are interordinated. The function of the more depends on the function of the better and vice versa. Syntagms with ICs i.n interordination are also known as correlative constructions. The relation of interor-

dination

is symbolised by a double-headed

arrrow,

e.g.

the more the better As none of the ICs is functionally independent, both occupy aperipheral position. The relation of coordination holds between ICs which are functionally independent of each other.16 In the syntagm old expensive books both adjectives modify the nucleus books. The func-

tion of old does not depend on the function of expensive, and vice versa. Therefore old and expensive are coordinated, The relation of coordination is symbolized by a crossed double-headed arrow, e.g. The terms

old subordination

expensive and coordination

in particular

are

'1iide-spread in modern linguistics. Therefore it is important to stress that in AF these notions are unambiguously defined and consistently applied. Their meanings do not necessarily coincide with the meanings which other linguistic schools give them. A striking example of possible terminological confusion and

of inadequate

and inconsistent

description

at the same time is the

analysis of syntagms like boys and girls as coordinated constructions. The ICs of the syntagm are said to be boys, and, girls with of coordination existing between the ICs boys and the relation gJ.rls. This relation is established by the so-called coordinator and. This analys1s is not only inadequate, but also inconsistent with the underlying definition of coordination which requires that have the same distribution the ICs of a coordinated construction 17 as the construction itself. The IC and has certainly not the

16cf. 1 7ef.

Mulder 1980:48,

def.llb

Bloomfield, L. Language, New York 1933, repr. London 1969, chapt. 12. 1O: "Endocentr 1c constructions are of two kinds, co-ordinative ( ••• ) and subordinative (.T.). In the former type the resultant phrase belongs to the same form-class as two or more of the constituents. Thus, the phrase boys and ~lrls belongs to the same form-class as the constituent~, boys, girls; these con-

17

same distribution as boys and girls. Two considerations are important for the analysis of the Firstly, the relation between syntagm according to AF principles. bo~s and girls is not direct, but via and. Secondly, boys has the same distribution as the whole syntagrn~ the ICs of the syntagm are therefore boys and and girls. 18 This means that the relation between bo~s and girls is not tactic either. The function of the IC boys is independent of that of and girls, but not vice versa. The direct, tactic relation between the ICs of the syntagm boys and girls is therefore not coordination, but subordination with boys as nucleus and and girls as expansion. All linguists will probably agree that the ICs the and books of the syntagm the books stand in a relation of subordination. holds between the ICs the and According to AF the same relation book of the syntagm the book. In both syntagms there is unilateral functional dependency with the substantive in nuclear and the definite article in peripheral position. If syntactic relations are 19 the analysis of the defined, however, via paradigmatic classes, singular ayntagm as a subordination construction is no longer justified. Whereas the elements books and the books belong to the same distributionclass, book and the book do not, cf. the book.a

are expensive, books;

the

books are expensive;

book is

expens1 ve,

I

bought the books,

1rbook is

expens1 ve;

I

bought bought the I

book~ ~I bought book. Bloomfield himself was aware of this

prob-

sti tuents are the members of the co-ordination, and the other constituent is the co-ordinator.~ Lyons, J. Introductlon to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge 1971, chapt. 6. 4. 2. : "Endocentric constructions fall into main types: co-ordinating and subordinating. Co-ordinating constructions have the same distribution as each of their constituents taken sepa-

rately."

Pilch, H. Altengli:;c;he Gca11111U!tik,Mlinchen 1970, §39.3; "GehOren a, b und ab alle drei 2u einer gegebenen paradigrna.tischen Klasse, io ne113t ale Relation zwischen ihnen eine Koord1nat1on." [If a, b, and ab belong to the same paradigmatic class, the relation between tfiem is called coordination.) 18At first sight the grouping boys and and pirls seems equally adequate. For arguments against this analysis c . Mulder 1980!168.

19cf.

Bloomfield

1933!cha.pt.12.10: In subordinative endocentr1c constructions, the resultant phrase belongs to the same form-class as one of the constituents, which we call the head ... 11

18

lem, but he dismissed

it as "minoru.20 His followers

do not discuss it at all, but choose their examples with great cAre so that problems do not arise. In AF problems of this kind cannot occur because synta.ctlc relations are not defined in terms of occurrence dependency, but in terms of functional dependency. Occurrence dependency provides, however, a useful test in syntactic analysis, because there are regular correspondences between certain types of occurrence dependency and certain types of

functional

dependency. As with functional

of occurrence

dependency three

types

dependency

can be distinguished: bilateral occurbilateral occurrence dependency, and unilater-

rence independency, al occurrence dependency. 21 Uni.lateral occurrence dependency is exemplified by the ICs of the syntagm the books; the occurrence of books is independent of the occurrence of the definite article, 22 but not vice versa. Bilateral occurrence dependency holds between the ICs of the syntagm the book~ neither of them has the same distribution as the whole syntagm.23 The ICs the more and !h!:.

better of the syntagm the more the better stand also ln a relation of mutual occurrence dependency; neither of them can occur in the same environment as the whole syntagm. In the syntagm old expensive books the ICs old and expensive are mutually occurrence-independent. They belong to the same distribution class as the IC old expensive of the syntagm olq e>g2ensive books. It follows that there is a one-to-one relation between bilateral occurrence independency and coord1nat1on, and a one-to-one relation between uni11 20cf. Bloomfield 1933:chapt.12.10: There may be minor differences of form-class between the resultant phrase and the members... 21 cf. Mulder 1980:49£., defs. 12 a-c

fining for

22For Bloomfield unilateral criterion for the relation

23 silateral occurrence Bloomfield• s exocentric

belong to a form-class stance,

John

ran

is

occurrence dependency is the desubordination, cf. fn. 19.

dependency is the defining relation:

..The resultant

criterion

other than that of any constituent.

neither

a nominative

express.ion

phrase

( like

may

For inJohn)

nor a finite verb expression ( like ran). Therefore we say thattne English actor-action construction is exocentric: the resultant phrase belongs to the form-class of no immediate constituent. (Bloomfield 1933:chapt.12.10) ently applied in descriptions

That this definition is not consistwas shown before, cf. p.19£.

It

19

lateral occurrence dependency and subordination. If two ICs are mutually occurrence-dependent, the relation between them is either subordination or interordinatlon. In the syntagrn the book there 1s mutual occurrence dependency. The statement that the definite article is subordinated to the 5ubstantive is based on the hypothesis that the relation between the and book is the same as that between the and books, which is a clear case of subordination. This hypothesis is valid until it is refuted. one nucleus can be expanded by more than one peripheral element. The direct tactic relations in such syntagms are complex. TWOcomplex relations are to be distinguished: disjunctive or diverse determination and conjunctive or parallel determination. The complex relation in a subordinative syntagm with more than one peripheral element is called diverse if the peripheral elements determine the nucleus 1n significantly different ways.24 In the syntagm the hunter killed the lion the subject the hunter and the object the lion determine the verb1 and they do so in significantways, cf. the hunter killed the lion i the lion killly different ed the hwiter. The complex relation in this syntagm is therefore diverse determination. If a nucleus c 1s expanded by the peripheral elements! and~ and the complex relation between these ICs

is diverse determination,

it 1s symbolized as

H->c If the elements a and b determine a nucleus c and it ascertained

that

comple.x relation

they do so in significantly is called

parallel

determination.

different 25 It

cannot be way$,

the

is symbol-

ized as

In the syntagm many very old books the nucleus books is expanded by manyand by very old. It may be - and indeed it is very proba24cf.

Mulder 1980:50,

25ct.

Mulder 1980:50!.,

def. def.

14a 14b

20

ble - that the relation between many and books is not exactly the same as that between very old and books1 but the difference cannot

be established on functional grounds~ Therefore the hypothesis is that the complex tactic relation in the syntagm many very old books is parallel

many and very old

determination. The expansions peripheral positions, cf.

are in different

many}very old If two elements

exclude

> books

each other

as determiners

of the same nu-

they realize the same position, if not they realize different positions. The plereme many excludes the plereme several as a determiner of books; they realize the same position, which JM.Ybe called 'quantifier'. On the other hand, many does not exclude elements like his or my uncle"s, cf. his many very old books, !!!l uncle's many very old books. Therefore his and my uncle's (which cleus,

exclude each other) realize a different peripheral position from man~. The only possibility for two syntagms not to exclude each other and yet to be in the same position is if they are coordinated, e.g. many very old extremely expensive books. The syntagms very old and extremely expensive are in the same position because they are coordinated, cf.

(very->

old)

(extremely-->

man}-

expen$ive)

> books

6. Data Base

Early Middle English Syntax implies that the descriptive models cover the syntactic structure of all EMEtexts which have come down to usf even of those which are not yet known, but may be discovered in the future. The material adequacy of this claim may be tested by applying the models to randomly chosen syntagms from randomly chosen texts of the period. The 11\0dels, howeThe title

ver, do not presuppose an exhaustive analysis of all extant texts.

21

a living lanbeing that the amount of available guage are, the only difference data against which descriptive models can be checked 1s limited in a dead language, whereas it is unlimited 1n a living language. Prior Mtalysis of all data is not only unnecessary, but it would also be very time-conswning. In his Manual of the Writings in Middle English Wells lists more than 80 texts of the EME period. They a.re generative

to

the

same degree

as models

of

I chose a little more than one third of these (33 texts) as the data base for my study. This main body of data is supplemented by references

from ME dictionaries

and relevant

special

studies.

Heterogeneity was my main concern in the selection of the texts. They vary in literary genre, dialect, size, source and form. The data base includes romances (e.g. King Hom, Havelok) and chronicles (e.g. Peterborou9h Chronicle), sermons (e.g. Old Kentlsh Sermons) and debates (e.g. The Owl and the Nightingale). The shortest text consists of 8 lines only (Wlll and Wit}, the longest runs to over 30000 lines (Layamon"s Brut). Some texts &re are translations or adaptations of foreign originals which they may or may not acknowledge. Layamon, for example, indicates his sources at the very beginning of his text1 ''he nom pa Englisca boc pa makede Seint Bed.a an oper he nom on pe makede Seinte Albin & the feire Austin l)e fulluht Latin broute hider in boc he nom pe pridde leide per am.idden pa makede a Frenches clerk Wace wes ihoten" (LB 31ff.)

The books he mentions can be identified as the Latin original and the OE translation of Bede's Historla Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum as well as Wacets Brut. The ME Bestlary 1s an English version of the well-known Latin text by Theobaldus. other texts are original works for which no sources a.re known (e.g. The Proverbs of Alfred, Poellld Morale). Reflecting the proportions in which verse and prose texts have come down to us, the data base contains fewer examples of the latter {e.g. The Peterborough Chronicle, Old Kentlsh

Sermons,

The Bodley

Homllies,

The Shires

and Hundreds

of Eng-

land) Regional variation is more amply illustrated on the eastwest axis than on the north-south axis; most texts belong to the Midlands and the South. For all texts I have used editions of the w

earliest

MS available.

22

7. Descriptive

Method

The models of a linguistic description form a system with complex relations between its members. It is difficult to present the models in a convenient arrangement because the description of the realization possibilities of each model presupposes some knowledge about the structure of other models. The description of the model of the substant1val syntagm, for example, requires some understanding of the prepositional syntagm and vice versa, because a substant1val syntagm. like those very old books on the green shelf contains the prepositional syntagm on the green shelf as one of its ICs, and the prepositional syntagm on the green shelf contains the substantival syntagm the green shelf as one of its ICs. Although references to later chapters are unavoidable, the arrangement chosen here restricts these to a necessary min1mwn. The presentation begins with the models of those syntagms which realize

compulsory

constituents

of EME clauses.

The chapter

which

follows deals with nominal syntagms, Le. syntagms with substantival, adjectival, and pronominal nuclei. The common feature of Syntagms') is the syntagms described in Chapter IV. ('Functional that their nuclei belong to closed classes. The models in Chapter v. ('The Predicative Syntagm') are a necessary prerequisite for the description of EME clause types which fol lows. The heading •Functional Constructions' for Chapter VII. is motivated by the fact that the nuclei of these syntagms resemble those of 'funcpositions are tional syntagrns • , but the I Cs in the peripheral either realized by or contain predicative syntagms. In contrast Chapters VIII. and IX. introduce no new modto earlier chapters, els and instead present syntagms characterized either by special syntactic properties of their ICs ('Conjunctive Constructions 1 ) or by special syntactic relations between their ICs ( 'Syntagms 'Syntagms with coordinated ICs' ). The last chapter with the title with Interordinated ICs takes up the passive syntagm again and treats two constructions corresponding to the PDE types he is easy to please and the more - the better. The descriptions of all the models presented are accompanied by several examples which illustrate some of the realization possibilities. Examples from verse texts are referenced by line numI

23

ber,

those from prose texts

by page and line

number. All examples are translated into PDE {preceded by ":: Where helpful to understand the syntactic structure of the EMEexamples, a word-for-word translation was added, sometimes accompanied by morphological information ( in italics) • The syntactic structure of the relevant 11

).

part of each example is analysed in terms of the appropriate el.

mod-

II.

COMPULSORY CONSTITUENTS OF EARLYMIDDLEENGLISHCLAUSES

1. The Active Verbal syntagm In its

an inflected Ex~les;

simplest

form the active

verbal

syntagm consists

of

verb form. beorkep his hu.ndes (LB:21340) bark his hounds ch1s hounds are barking pu fli st ni tes euer mo (ON238) you fly [at] night ever more

=you fly always at night

More complex realizations of the syntagm contain a verbal nucleus and one or more peripheral elements. As the latter belong to different paradigmatic classes, several peripheral positions have to be set up in the model of the active verbal syntagm. An action which took place in the past can be expressed by an inflected past verb form (=morphological past) or by a conbinaation of an inflected form of habben 'have' and the past participle of a lexical verb ( •syntactic past) . As in OE there 1s no complementary distribution between the morphological and the syntacby the following syntagms.: 1 tic past. This can be illustrated Ex~les:

past

And alle po pet anie wise po diefle er ikuemde po bed nu mid him in helle, vordon and vordemde CPM271f. t and all those who in any wise the devil before pleased, they are now with him in hell, ruined and damned •and all those who pleased the devil before in any way are now with him in hell, ruined and damned Blipe ma.1 he panne ben ~et god haued iquemed (PM174) glad may he then be who God has pleased ~he who pleased God may then be glad

1cf. Mitchell 1985:291: tense and the periphrasis

lel or connected

sentences."

"The well-known overlap between the is attested by their use in paral-

25

Both passages

this

point

out the consequences

world will have on his life

after

that

death.

man's behaviour

In the first

ple the morphological, The constituents

in the second the syntactic past haued and iguemed in PM174 are

occurrence dependency.

Therefore they are definitely

nated.

The data

in

exam-

is used. in mutual

not coordi-

show that

the number and type of the constituents which are governed by EMEactive verbal syntagms depend on the lexical verb and not on the tense marker. In our examples the objects ~o diefle and god are governed by forms of the verb cwemen. properThe form haued in PM174 has no bearing on the syntactical ties of the active verbal syntagm. This establishes the form of cwemen as nucleus and haued as an actualiser. The peripheral poby haueo will be called 'tense', and the sition which is filled model of the active verbal ayntagm can provisionally be represented as

verb.

tense->

The peripheral

position

a form of the auxiliary

iary hen 'be'.

'tense'

can be realized not only by but also by a form of the auxil-

habben. Usually the lexical

verb determines

the choice of

one or the other auxiliary.2 The auxiliary habben is used significantly more often than ben. out of the 163 verbs of my data which position, 116 combine only are expanded by an element in •tenset with habben, 40 only with ben. Bearing in mind the PDE situation,

we may infer

from this

distribution that the substitution of ben by habben is well under way in EME. This pro-

in ttense' position cess had started in OE already. According to Mustanoja the distribution of the auxiliaries in OE was such that beon/wesan was used with intransitive, habban with transitive verbs. The latter was "occasionally also found

with true

intransitive

OE it is developing fect and pluperfect

sents

verbs

( ••• ), which suggests

that

even in

into a kind of general auxiliary of the pertenses" (Mustanoja 1960:500). But he misrepre-

the EMEsituation tically all transitive

when he maintains that "by early MEpracverbs use have for the formation

2Appendices II.1 and II,2 contain lists bine only with one or the other auxiliary.

of their

of verbs which com-

26

perfect and pluperfect tenses'' (Mustano ja 1960 ! 500) . The following examples show that in EME intransitive verbs can be combined with habben and transitive verbs with hen. Examples: ~a men hafden

iuast

=the men had fasted

him ~at hit

(LB22310)

ischapen

he who it created is =he who created

Mustanoja.

himself

admits

is

(PA143)

it

that

the

syntactic

properties

of a

verh did not exclusively determine the choice of the auxiliary. He points out that o~iginally both auxilia.i:-ies denoted a state, then they came to denote the effect or the result of an action. But only beon/wesan kept the former possibility beside the newly acquired one. Thus the pragmatic/textual meaning can be made to explain the use of ben in contexts where we would expect habben, i.e. in the presence of an object. Another feature which is considered relevant for the choice of ben as auxiliary 1& the semantic structure of the verb itself. Mustanoja mentions the semantic component 'mutative', which prevents intransitive verbs from being combined with habben. The same semantic component may explain the use of ben with transitive verbs, too. The following syntagm is a case in point. Example: po he was iknowe pat Rimenhild

was his 03e (KH983f.)

The verb cnawen which usually means 'to know• is used here as a mutative verb, which expresses the transition from one state to another. The passage should be translated learnt that Rimenhild was his own [ =had

as 'when he (=Horn] remained faithful to

Horn had been forced by an intrigue to leave the country, King Modi had proposed to Rimenhild. As the wooer was supported by Rimenhild's father, the wedding was imminent despite her refusal. In her di:stress :she sent a messenger to Horn. The passage quoted above introduces Hornts reaction. It expresses his transition from the state of ignorance or uncertainty to the state of certa.in knowledge. him)'.

After

Examples of intransitive frequent

than transitive

verbs combined with habben are more verbs combined with ben. They fore8hadow

27

the later generalization of have as a tense aux1liary. 3 The following syntagms illustrate the use of habben as an expansion of intransitive verbs irrespective of whether they express

the result

Examples:

of an action

or a state

(of limited

duration):

Jhc habbe wa.lke wide (KH953~

I have walked wide =I travelled far pe saulen ... pat so hedden isped pat leyen hedden in peouene bed (VP255f.) the souls ... that so had behaved that [they] lain had in thieves' bed =those who had behaved in such a way that they had been thieves Hit halJ ileie l)ere Fulle seue 3ere (KH1139) it has lain there full seven years

lay there seven clear years pos laste on ure habbe~ i-travailed (KS34,3) those last [ones] one hour have worked =those last ones worked for one hour =it

The choice of habben with intransitive tivated by the context: Example: Al to lome ic habbe igelt

verbs may also be mo-

on worke and on worde (PM11}

all too often I have sinned in works and in words =all too often have I sinned in deeds and in words

The verbs in the immediate neighbourhood

of gelten are transitive (habbe iguede {9), ha.bbe idon ( 10}, habbe ispent ( 12), habbe ileid (12)). Therefore the use of habben needs no justification here. This series of active verbal syntagms with habben in 'tense• position may have had a levelling influence on the construction of gelten. Some verbs

of my data

combine

with

habben

as well

as wit.h

ben: bipenchen:

To late ic habbe me bipoht (PM8)4 too late I have me bethought ;too late did I think [about it} To bidden his milce to late we beod b1-pohte {D055f.} 5

3This development has to be seen as complementary to another process, namely the generalization of be as a passive auxiliary. 4cf.

(LB16745)

5cf .. (LB2510)

28

to ask his mercy too late we are bethought breken:

~too late did we consider to ask for his mercy If 6u hauest is broken (B137)6 if you have them broken •if you have broken them [~the laws of the church] ~u ert of pyne ibroke (VP10)

you are of pain broken-away •you overcame the pain

don:

what ha.uelJ pes mon ido (PL336) what has this man done =what did this man do mine dagis arren nei done (PA582) my days are nearly done =my days have nearly

faren:

he ...

tolde

passed (=come to an end] him ful 3are Hu he hadde 1fare

(KH465f,

)

he told

him full

•he readily

how he had fared

readily

told him how he had fared

Julius pe k~1sere was from ~issen londe 1faren (LBBOOJf.) Julius the emperor was from this land travelled =ElTiperorJulius had left this country

Ihc habbe go man1 mile

(KH1176)

I have gone many miles

=I travelled

many a mile

a 33 wass pe 33 re

efenn (OR4352f.} always

was their

=their

(=the Jews'}

evening

evening of that leggen:

week.e gan

week gone

day

All

all

at

out that

day at

week had always finished

in the

Al to muchel ic habbe ispent, to litel ileid on horde (PM12) all too much I have spent, too little laid on hoard

=too much have I spent,

too little

laid aside

ure lord was i-leid him don to $lepe our Lord was lain him down to sleep =our Lord had lain down to sleep

setten:

di 3 att

tatt

1cc hafe sett hero

f0Rd41ff.) I have set

~is boc ...

here on this

=I have written

po vre louerd

man13 word

book ••• many words

many a word into this

wes isethe

(KS32, 1Sf.)

to his supere

book

(PL90)

when our Lord was sat [down] to his supper =when our Lord had sat down to his supper

With some of the 6c f.

( HK1238)

verbs

the

difference

in construction

is

29

f don, f aren , gan ) • The verbs leggen and setten are combined with ben, when they govern a pronominal object which refers back to the subject. This construction is still current in Modern High German, cf. setzen Sie sich 'take a seat', leg' dich h1n und sei still 'lie down and be quiet'. In PDE, however, the construction 'causative verb+ reflexive pronoun object' no longer exists. The causative verbs have been replaced in this construction by their corresponding pr 1maries: ~ lay + reflexive pronoun' by lie, 'set + reflexive pronoun• by sit. The nucleus of an active verbal syntagm can also be expanded by a class of elements which correspond in form and function to the PDE modal auxiliaries. This class has the following members: ah,7 can, dear, mz1, ~, ~~ schal, ~1 uten, willen8. They require the nucleus in its infinitive form. matched

by a d 1 ff erence

in

meaning

Examples: ich hire wulle teche

a5 ic con (LR8) I her will teach as I can =I will teach her as well as I can

Summeme may per iseon (VP95) some one mAy there see ·

zone can see some there Eade hi mu3en bi offerd

pet sullen hine bihialde (PM286) easily they may be afraid that shall him behold =they may well be afraid who shall see hi.m

In PDE modal auxiliaries

cannot manifest

active

verbal

syntagms

on their own, lexical verbs can. It is t.berefore correct to say that there is unilateral occurrence de~endency between modal auxiliaries and lexical verbs in PDE, although there are environments in which - due to concord restrictions - the form of the lexical

verb cannot replace

the whole syntagrn,

cf.

7The

auxiliary ah occurs in two variants: ah and ah to. They are in free variation"; cf. ne og ur non oder tosunen {B28S} "not ought of-us none (the] other to shun' ~Tnone of us should shun the other one'; Her-of we owe penche (B217) 'of-this we ought think =•this we should consider' 8GCE §3. 20 in.eludes also the elements need and used to for PDE; they do not exist in EME. The EME forms man, ~irf, uten do no longer exist in POE. Traces of man survive 1n,-rna1n y nortfiern) dialects of PDE. -

30

he

I will come I to wcome

the meeting

In EME- as indeed up to the Early Modern English 'auxiliaries'' can manifest nuclei of active verbal

period - modal synta.gms.

Example: We solden us bi~enche bet ofte and wel ilame Hwet we bied,

(PM327f.)

and of wham we come

to hwam we sulle,

us bethink better, often and well readily, what we are, to whom/what we shall and of whom/what we come =we should consider more, often and readily, what we are, ~here we go to, and where we come from we should

Thus it seems that there modal verbs and lexical refuted by the following PM32S 1s the

nucleus

is mutual occurrence independence between verbs in EME. This asswnption i.s easily considerations. It is true that sulle in

of

an

active

verbal

syntagm. It governs a

prepositional object {=to hwam). Sullen in PM286, however, cannot be the nucleus of sullen bihialde, because this active verbal syntagm governs the direct object h1ne, which 1s a syntactic pro~

perty of the lexical fore,

i.s that

verb bihialde.

The correct

PM328 and PM286 represent

analysis,

different

there-

construcions.

occurrence independence, however, holds only between elements of the same construction, As the syntactic properties of a syntagm are determined by its nucleus, it follows that in EMEactive verbal syntagms of the form 'modal auxiliary + lexical verb' the

latter

1s the nucleus.

The peripheral

ized by modal auxiliaries

representation

of this

will

be called part of the verbal

modal -->

Modal auxiliaries

pos1t1on which may be real•modal•t and the formal syntagm is

verb.

and tense

markers

do not

exclude

each

other in front of the same verb.

Example: Ic mi3te habbe bet idon (PM15} I migfit have better done :I

Therefore

might have done better

two peripheral

positions

have to be set up in the model

of the active verbal syntagm. The elements in the two peripheral positions determine the verb in the same way. The complex syntactic relation involved 1s therefore parallel determination, and the enlarged

version

of the model is

31

moda}verb >

tense The above example is to be analysed

modal: mi3t}tense:

as

> verb:

idon

habbe

shown before, some verbs combine only with habben, others only with ben in 'tense' position, some combine with either, but none with both at the same time. Interestingly enough, can occur before the we find that more than one modal auxiliary same verb in the same syntagrn. As was

Ex!!!llPle: he sel him cunnen silde wel (PM334) he shall him can shield well =he will be able to protect himself well pat mannk.inn shollde mu3henn wel upp cumenn inntill heoffne (OR3944f.} that mankind should may well up come into heaven =that

mankind

up into heaven

should

have the

opportunity

of getting

The first modal auxiliary shows person and number concord with the subject, the second and the lexical verb are in the infinitive. Theoretically the syntagm may represent four different con-

structions: a) The two modal verbs realize each determining the lex.ical

modal

1}->

verb

modal 2

different verb, i.e.

------>

modal 2

b) The two modal verbs a.re coordinated determining the lexical verb, i.e.

1 -->

modal

2} ->

verb

in the same position,

each

verb

c) The two modal verbs realize one peripheral being sUbordinated to modal 2, i.e. (modal

positions,

modal 1

or

(modal 1 modal 2} -->

peripheral

verb

position,

modal 1

32

d) The first

sisting

modal verb determines

a complex verbal

of the second modal verb and the lexical

modal 1 -->

(modal 2

~~>

nucleus,

con-

verb, i.e.

verb).

The first two solutions can be ruled out on the grounds that there is no direct relation between the first modal and the nucleus. This statement presupposes that we know exactly what the syntagm means. The nearest equivalent in PDEare constructions of the type must be allowed to come. In German the isomorphic construction er muB kommen kOnnen exists. It can be shown that the permutation of the two modals changes the meaning of the syntagm, cf. er mu.13 kommenkOnnen ~ er kann kommenmQssen 'he must be allowed to come' ,(t 'he may have to come• • This means that the two modal verbs do not determine the nucleus in the same way. Moreoover, the syntagrn er muBkommenkOnnen is significantly different from er muBkommen the must come'. This means that there is no direct relation between~ and kommen. Accordingly we assume that there is no direct relation between shollde and upp cumenn either. This in turn implies that the second modal cannot form a complex nucleus with the lexical verb, because this would establish a direct relation between the first modal verb and the lexical verb. This was ruled out before. The correct analysis of the construction is therefore c) with the two modal verbs in the same peripheral position, the first subordinated to the second. OR3944f. should be analysed as (shollde

mu3henn) -> upp comenn. This analysis is borne out by tests with Modern English informants. Asked to answer questions with complex verbal syntagms, m.y informants included all elements in peripheral positions in

their

->

answers, e.g.

Could the dog be lying under the table in a-floor sitting-room? - Yes, he could be. Should parents be allowed to forbid their children to go to the cinema? - Yes, they should be allowed.

Visser not analyse He mentions

lists the construction (§1645, §2134), but he does the syntagmatic relations between the constituents. that

died out after

the construction

that

period,

was frequent in ME, but that it surviving only in Scottish dialects.

33

In nearly all his examples the first modal 1s shall or should. As the construction is not attested for OE at all, but is con1110nin Dutch

and German,

Visser

conjectures

that

it

may have

been

bor-

rowed from these languages. As this construction shows, the 'modal' position may also be realized by more complex syntactic entities. Different constructions are possible. Fairly frequent is a realization by two modal auxiliaries, which are connected by a conjunction, in particular by and. 9

pat

kunne & wille ri 3t us deme (ON186) who can and will rigfit us judge =who can and will judge us competently

se t,et mai and nele l)ider come (PM372) the [manJ that may and will-not thither come =he who can, but does not want to go there The active

verbal

syntagms of the examples are analysed

& wille modal: mai and nele

modal: kunne

->

->

as

verb: deme verb: come

active verbal syntagm may contain a form of ben which requires the following nucleus in present participle form, As the construction 1s isomorphic with the PDE progressive aspect, the by ben will be called •aspect'. position which can be realized Expansion by an element in 'aspect' position does not, however, mean that the syntagm expresses simultaneity, incompletion, an action of limited duration, etc. 10 Some verbs, e.g. waxen, walden, wunien occur more often in this construction than others. An

Exam_..e,_les : nys no wrt uexynde a wude ne a velde

pas feye furp vp-holde (P~168ff,J

pat

euer mvwe

not-is no herb growing in [the) wood nor in [the] field which ever may the doomed further uphold =no plant grows in the wood or in the field which could ever save those who are doomed to die po were in iherusalem •.• Men wunyinde of alle kunnes londe (PL665f.) then were in Jerusalem ••• men living of all kinds of countries •people of different countries were living in Jerusalem then 9For the description 10cf.

GCE §3.29ff.

of this

construction

cf.

Chapt.VIII.

34

preo dzies wes pe king wuniende l)ere & pan feorde c:la!ie to Tintaieol he wende (LB19216ff.) three days was the king- living there and [on the] fourth day to Tintaieol he went =the king stayed there for three days, and on the fourth day he went to Tintaieol The verbal syntagrn of the first example expresses an action of unlimited duration, which corresponds to the simple form in PDE. Out of context PL665f. is ambiguousz it may either express an action of limited duration ( =were living) or a completed action (=lived). LB19216ff. is a c1ear case of enumeration of actions completed. in the past.

Mustanoja (1960;585) assumes that the construction which in OE is restricted to prose was associated in HE with vivid narration. Although ben is by far the most frequent 'aspect' expansion, it is not the only possible one. The following syntagm shows that 1n this function. When ben commutes with verbs like sitten 'sit' these verbs are used as peripheral elements in an active verbal syntagm, their meaning is nearly equivalent to that of ben.

EXamEle; he murninge sat

he mourning sat

(FB36)

=he was unhappy

expansion in 'aspect' position does not exclude an element in 'mod.al' position, but data are lacking for the simultaAn

neous

occurrence

earliest

of

'aspect

'

and

•tense

I

expansions.

's

examples (§2148) date from the 14th century. The lack of

co-occurrence of the two expansions may be due to the and the 1 ~ the 'have+ past participle periphrasis' participle periphrasis' had not yet well-established functions. Therefore it is not necessary to set up two

positions verbal

Visser

in the model of the active

different verbal syntagm. The active

syntagms of the examples are analysed ys

were wes

sat

-> -> -> ->

The same position pansion or by a 'tense'

fact that + present different

as

uexynde

wunyinde wuniende murninge

may be realized expansion.

either by an •aspect' exDepending on the type of expan-

35 sion,

the nucleus

is either

a present

participle

parof the model

or a past

ticiple of a lexical verb. The formal representation of the active verbal syntagm is now11

~> verb

modal tense l {aspect) The nucleus

of an active

verbal

syntagm may also

be expanded

by a negative particle. In EMEthe most frequent negative particle is ne, and there is unilateral occurrence dependency between the negative particle and the verb. As the verb determines the syntactic properties of the active verbal syntagm, there is also unilateral functional dependency between these two elements. The verb is

the

nucleus,

peripheral

the

position

negative

p&rticle an expansion which will be called 'negation•.

Exameles: he ne hedden per before ine him beliaue they not had there before in him belief

realizing

a

(KS30, 4f.)

=there they did not believe in him before Hwi ne serue we crist (SC1) why not serve we Christ =why do we not serve Christ

The negative particle

ne, which precedes the nucleus has two var-

iants: ne and the proclitic form!!:.· The latter is a positional va.riant which occurs with the verbs habben 'have', witen 'know', 1 bileven 'believe', !!2!! 'see•. 2

Examples: he pe bet nise 3e (ON382) he the better not-see =he does not see the better hy nvten hwat hi dop {PL442) they not-know what they do =they do not know what they do The position

this

element

11eraces

'negation'

occurs

ean

also

much less

indicate

the same position. 12That the variant

frequently.

alternative n- is

can be seen from syntagmsltke

not saw• =•we did not see you·.

be realized

Its

realization

not obligatory

by !!2J!,

usual

although

position

possibilities in these

is

of

contexts

we pe ne yseyen (BE305) •we you

36

after the verb, nucleus.

but occasionally

Example: Neded de de deuel

no3t also precedes

the verbal

no 3t (8164)

urges you the devil not =the devil

does not urge you

The frequency of no3~ must have increased rapidly after the EME period , because according to Mustano ja ( 1960 : 34 0 ) .it had become

the ordinary negative particle in the 14th century. A third possibility is the co-occurrence of ne and no3t in 'negation• position. Examples:

ich ne singe nopt whan ich teme {ON1470) I not sing not when I breed ~I do not sing when I breed ich bi dai no3t ne flo (ON372) I by day not not fly

.r do not fly during the day

As both elements also occur independently of each other, one might be tempted to interpret their co-occurrence as a sign of emphasis. This interpretation is refuted, however, by para.l lel syntagms where the combination of the particles commutes with one of them.

Exam~les~ we{n)st pu ~at ich ne cunne singe (ON47) think

you that

I not can sing

=do you think that I cannot sing

pu .••

telst

pat ich ne can no3t singe

you say that I not can not sing =you say that I cannot sing

fON309f.)

Thus ne-no3.!:, is a (discontinuous) constituent which commutes with the elements~ and ~3t in 'negation• position. The analysis of the active verbal syntagms of the above examples is

ne

ne ne ne

no3t

ne-no 3t ne ne-no3t 13As

positional

-> -> ->

-->

-> ->

-> ->

hedden

~erue 13

1.se3e wvten 14

nede flo

singe 15 s1nge 16

variants

are irrelevant in syntactic analyis, pleremes in a •normalized• form.

neglects

the elements in 'modal'

it is customary ( in AF) to represent

14cf.

fn.13

15This analysis

position.

37 They realize that part of the model of the active which may be represented as negation->

syntagm

verb.

element in 'negation• the other expansions.

position

An

Examples:

verbal

No men ne may herre

iseon

does not exclude any of (VP 34)

no man not may higher [trees]

see

~nobody can see higher (trees) Nabbed he no ping vor3ete of pan ~et he ise 3en (PM98) not-have they no thing forgntten of this that they saw =they have not forgotten

anything of what they saw nys no wrt uexynde a wude (PA168) not-is n.o herb growing in [the] wood =no herb grows in the wood

The examples illustrate

the following

combinations

of expansions.

negation+ modal, negation+ tense, negation+ aspect. stellation requires th8t we set up a sep&r&te 'negation' and the model of the active verbal syntagm 1s now

This conposition,

negation modal > verb

ten. se } { aspect

The nucleus of an active verbal syntagm may also be exp~ded by an inflected form of the verb ginnen; the nucleus follows in its infinitive form. Past forms of ginnen are much more frequent than present tense forms, the ratio being about 20: 1. The inflected forms of the past are gan/g_on, gunne, gunnen. The phonological similarity of the singular forms gan/ gon explains why they are by the forms£!!!!/~ of the modal auxiliasometimes substituted ry.17 17cf. Mustanoja 9.an are phonological

1960:610. variants

Visser even maintains that can and of the same verb: "both 2 and c

represent allophones of the same phoneme /g/, differing not in their being voiceless or voiced, but in the energy of articulation'' {Visser §14 77). He supports his argwnent by quoting cases of reverse spelling.

38

£?5!mple: t,e see him con ded prowe Vnder hire chambre wowe

(KH970af.) the sea him did dead throw under her chamber window =the sea threw him dead under her chamber window

This syntagn. shows that the original meaning 'begin 1 became weakened during the EME period, and ginnen could be used as an empty periphrastic verb. Mustanoja's statement that this holds only for the past forms of 91nnen should be modified so as to include all

forms. 18 The following two syntagms illustrate the range of possible meanings of the present tense forms of ginnen. Examples: pe blostme ginnep springe & sprede (ON437) =the blossoms begin (to] spring and spread clerkes ginneb songes wirche (ON722) clerics do songs make =clerics compose hymns The first

example occurs

in the context

of a conventional

picture

of spring: the snow has melted, early flowers begin to blossom, the birds come back. ON437 describes the beginning of a new season. The context of the second example is a simile in which the nightingale likens church services on earth to the state of everlasting bliss in heaven. Earthly and heavenly hymns are one aspect of the comparison. The form ginnep in ON722 has no ingressive meaning. The different shades of meaning are irrelevant, however, for syntactic analysis, because they have no bearing on the syntactic relation between the forms of ginnen and the following infinitive .. It is therefore not adequate to set up two different signs ginnan_ - as

Visser

does

{§1269,

§1477).

He explicitly

rejects

earlier

descriptions (Funke 1922, Homann 1954, Mustanoja 1960) which set up one verb ginnen with a range of different meanings. When gtnnan expresses the beginning of an action, state, etc., Visser calls it a 'verb of aspect•; when this meaning is not present, it is an

auxiliary (subclass 'periphrastic it is very hard to discriminate 11

(81269).

A valuable

verb'). He ad:mits, however, that between these two kinds of gan,.

piece of new information

18 1'Through frequent

which he contributes

use 1t loses 1ts ingressi ve colour more more and occurs mainly in the intensive-descriptive functions.11 (Mustanoja 19601611) and

39

is that the ginnen-expansion means that among the usages

Mittel

zur

Perfekt1vierung,

is

restricted to verse texts. This of ginnen enumerated by Funke - als 0

als

deskriptive

Ausdrucksform,

als

farbloses Flickwort .. (Funke 1922; 15) - the last one is perhaps even more frequent than was assumed before 1n the analysis of individual syntagm.s. Another element which may realize a peripheral position in an active verbal syntagm 1s the verb don. Here, too, the nucleus follows in its infinitive form. The meaning of 9.2.!lin this function is as opaque as that of ginnen. Very often an expansion by don does not change the meaning of the nucleus at all. When don is used in texts with end rhyme, it may safely be assumed that it serves to place the infinitive into end (=rhyme) position.

EXample: Apulf hit dude write

pat Horn ne luuede no 3t lite (KH931f.) Athulf it did write who Horn not loved not little =Athulf wrote it, who loved Horn very much

There are other

instances,

however, where don clearly

serves

the

purpose of emphasis. Example: se pet e3hte wile hialde wel pe hwile pe hi mot wealde, / 3ieue hi for godes loue, panne ded he hi wel ih1alde {PM55f.) the [man) who [his) possession will hold well as long

as he may dispose (of it], give it (away] for God's love, then does he it well hold •he who wants to keep well his possession while he may dispose of it, should give it away for God's sakei then does he keep it well

The four active verbal syntagms wile ihialde, mot wealde, 31eue, ded ihialde form two pairs of semantic contrast in a crosswise arrangement. In the pair mot wealde: 3ieue the antonymy is realof the verbs wealden 'keep' : 3~ ized by the semantic structure 'give away•. In the pair wile ihialde: ded 1hialde the verbal nucleus 1s the same. The semantic contrast is realized by the pewille expresses ripheral elements, wille and ded. The actualiser ded stresses the realization of this intention. The an intention, obviously deliberate rhetorical structure of the passage supports is not a neutral statement, but an the argument that de6 ihialde

40

early use of emphatic do. 19 It thus refutes Mustanoja"s hypothesis that "unambiguous cases of emphatic periphrastic do are not recorded until the 15th century" (Mustanoja 1960:606). The verb don as an actualise£ in an active verbal syntagm

has a similarly wide range of meanings as ginnen. Funke describes them as follows: "Doch begegnen uns einige Beispiele, 1n denen don entweder bereits an der Grenze zwa farblosen T!tigkeitswort steht, vielleicht vOllig pleonastisch geworden 1st oder aber zum Intensivum periphrastic

neigtn tFunke 1922!15). Both elements are either mere verbs which do not modify the meaning of the follow-

ing infinitive their meaning

at all, or they are aspect in an individual syntagm, it

markers. 20 Whatever seems safe to assume

with Visser that they exclude each other in the same active verbal posisyntagm.2 1 This means that they occupy the same peripheral tion. Expansions by don or 9innen w-il1 be called •periphrasis• expansions. Nearly all active verbal syntagtns of rny data which have a form of ginnen or don in peripheral position are not expanded by any other element. Only one syntagrn illustrates the combination of don and an element in 'modal' position.

Example: pat schall

don vs tene 22 (KH683)

that shall do us harm will harm us

=that

Vtsser quotes one syntagm with a combination of a negative ticle

par-

and don;

19The EMEtext is an allusion

ment where Jesus

to a passage in the NewTesta-

salvation to those who follow him. The Authorized Version preserves the same rhetorical structure: ..For whosoeuer will saue his life shall lose it, but whosoeuer shall lose his life for my sake and the Gospels, the same shall saue it.

11

promises

(Mk 8:35)

20 oo.rmOller/Utz (1974) analyse

..be+ present participle" and as alternative expressions of the progressive aspect. Mosst {1952:8134) considers ~1nnen as an aspect marker: 11 To express the idea of a 'beginning action (inchoative as;eect) HE normally used the verb gin(ne) ... 2 1visser goes even one step further, maintaining that don and "do + inf initive

11

tinnen are substitutable hesls by the observation

for each other.

and ginnen in another.

22tene is a verb here.

that

the

He supports thisli'ypohas don in one MS

same text

41

Example: we ne doz nou3t ore ordre breke (quot. we not do not our order break .:we do not break our order

Visser 11438)

In the EMEtexts investigated so far the combination of a 'periphrasis• expansion and either an 'aspect • or a t tense• expansion has not been found. Consequently, all three expansions realize the same position

and the model of the active

its most elaborate

form is

verbal

syntagm in

negation

moda~ense

}

> verb

aspect

{ periphrasis Applied ses.

to

Analysis1

the last

two examples,

yields

O negation; modal: schall

tense aspect

)

{periphrasis negation:

moda~!n~e aspect

{ periphrasis usually

it

the nuclea.r

: don

the following

>

verb: tene

>

verb: breke

analy-

ne-nou3t

} : doz

position

is realized

by one lexical

verb

"411hose form is determined by the immediately preceding expansion. One more complex realization is the combination of two (or more} lexical verbs which are connected by a conjunction, mostly by and.23 Examples: hi wolden heore louerdes

dom iseon and ihere

(PL228)

they would their Lord's judgement see and hear

=they wanted to see and hear their Lord•s pu mi3t, Hule, 3itte & clinge (ON743) you may, Owl, sit and wither-away =OWl, you may stay there and decay 23For the description

of this

construction

cf.

judgement

Chapt.VIII.

42

Analysis:

negation:

o

modal: wolden tense } aspect :0

> verbz iseon and 1here

negation: O moda~~n=!3t aspect ;0 {periphrasis

> verb:

fperiphrasis

J

2. The Copulative

sitte

&

clinge

Syntagm

Like the active verbal syntagm the EMEcopulative ayntagm can be realized by a finite verb form. It may therefore seem superfluous to nevertheless tive syntagm tation on the

set up two separate models. The two main reasons for doing so are the internal structure of the copulaon the one hand and the possible types of complemenother.24

Examples: Stille beo pu penne (KA24, still be you then =be quiet

1}

now

co£ he waxep lB124) bold he grows =he grows bold

Ho stondep pustrur

pane pe nyht (VP22S)

they stand darker than the night =they [=the devils] are blacker than the night

The first example illustrates the most frequent realization of the nucleus of a copulati.ve syntagm by a form of ben tbe•. The verbs which col1U'ltutewith ben in this function have next to no lexical

meaning. They serve to establish tion

between

•copulative

the

subject

a syntactic

and another

and a semantic rela-

IC ( which

will

be called

complement' - cf. Chapt.V.2.2.1.).25

24The complementation types are described

in Chapt.v.2.2.

25 rn my data the following verbs form nuclei of copulative syntagms: ben, bicumen, bll2fen, biliven, biseme, faren, elden, hoven, laeven"; II:9gen:, 11v Ien, sit ten, stanoen, llflnchen, waxen, wurpen.

43

The internal

structural differences between the active verbal syntagm and the copulative syntagm concern not only the realization possibilities of the nucleus, but also the number of peripheral positions and their realization. A 'negation• position has to be set up for the copulative syntagm, too. It is realized by the particle ne or by the discontinuous constituent ne-no3!• The particle ~3! alone is not recorded in this peripheral position of the copulative syntogm. As in the active verbal syntagm, the negative particle ne has two positional variants,~ and the procl1tic form!!=· The latter negates the forms~, art, is, were, weren, resulting in the forms !!!!!!, !!!.!:!.,!!!!, nere, neren. The particle ne precedes the nucleus of the copulative syntagm (alone or as part of the discontinuous constituent), the element !!23~ follows it.

Examples: pat land nis god (ON999) that land not-is good •that land is not good Ne beop nopt ones alle sunne (ON1395) not are not the-same all sins =all

sins

are not alike

Adopting the terminology

English

(GCE), I shall

call

used in the Grammarof Contemporary

the nuclear

position

model of the copulative syntagm which is required aa of the exam.plea above can be represented

negation--> The copulative

'copula".

for the analysis

copula.

syntagms of the examples. are analysed

ne ne-no 3t

-> -->

The

as

1s26 beot:,27

In the copulative syntagm the modal position cannot be realized by the elements man and uten. A possible explanation for this is that these modal auxiliaries were no longer well integrat1

26The pleremes

27cf. fn.3

are given in their

1

•normalized'

form, cf. fn.13.

44

ed in the language

system of the EMEperiod.28

Examples: syker he may sitte pe hyne hauep to 1-vere (PA217f.) safe he may sit who him has as friend =whoever possesses

it

[=reason]

can be safe

se man pet wile siker bien (PM41} the man who will safe be =the man who wants to be safe

position of a copulative syntsgm ah to and ah for to. They are free variants.

The element ah in •modal' has the

variants

ExamEles: mi wit oh to bi more (PM2)

my wit ought to be more ~1 ought to be wiser

Englond auhte forto ben Youres (HK2800f.) :England ought to be you4s I The modal ' position can also be realized by more complex syntactic entities, e.g. by two modal auxiliaries which are connected by a conjunction.

he one ma1 and sel bien engles and mannes blisce (PM378)

he alone may and shall be angels' and man's bli~s -he alone can and will be the bliss of angels and

mankind As in the active sition

i11re a.ctualisers, The copulati.ve syntagms

verbal syntagm, the elements because

they

do not

of the examples

in 'modal' po-

commute with

are therefore

zero.

to be ana-

lysed as may

oh to auhte forto

The formal

->

bi ben

->

->

representation

model of the copulative

modal-> Element.s

sltte bien

->

wille

the respective

part

of the

syntagm is

copula,

in 'negation'

not mutually exclusive

of

position

and in

in the same copulative

'modal

I

position

are

syntagm.

ExarnEles. ne sel no mer3de bi swo muchel swo is godes s1hte (PM367) 28This assumption is supported by the observation that also in the 'modal" position of the active verbal syntagm man and uten occur very rarely (4 examples for man, 7 for uten).

45

not shall no mirth be so big as Godts sight ~no delight is so big as the sight of God pu ne mi 3t mid us ho bllpe (ON418) you not can With us be merry =you cannot be merry wlth us

The representation which allows

the analysis

negatio}modal Analysis:

of the model of the copulative

syntagm

of the examples above is

> copula

negation:

n}->

copula:

bi

copula:

bo

modal: sel

negation: n}-> modal: mi3t The •tense' position in the by forms of habben •have• or ben in complententary distribution such ed by forms of habben, the nuclei by forms of ben.2 9 The combination the nuclei waxen and wurt,en may nuclei express occurrence of

the ~

transit ion in 'tense'

1

copulative syntagm is reali:zed be The two auxiliaries stand that the nucleus ben is expandwaxen and wurpen are expanded of ben in •tense' position with 1

•

be due to the fa.et that these from one state to another. 30 The position needs no justification.

It seems quite natural that an element on its way to being generalized in a particular peripheral position will also combine readily with the most frequent nucleus of the construction. Ex!!$>les:

Wel longe

ic habbe child

ibien

on worde and on dede

(PMJ)

well long I have child been 1n words and in deeds =a very long time have I been a child and in my deeds

29other nuclei are not recorded position in my data.

with an element

in my words

in 'tense•

30The semantic component 1 mutative' is also considered responsible [or the combination of particular verbal nuclei with ben in 'tense' position, cf. chapt.II.1.

46

Godess enngless w.eerennpa Well swipe glade wurpenn Off ~at (OR3914ff.)

God's angels were then very glad become of that =then God's angels had become very glad about it That part

of the model of the copulative

in these examples can be represented syntagms

of the

from elements 'modal' and 'tense',

examples

->

habbe

wcerenn Apart

as

copula.

tense-> The copulative

syntagm which is realized

are

analy3ed

as

ibien

wurl)erm .

-->

positions 'negano other expansions occur in the copu-

which can occupy the

tion', lative syntagrn. Constituents in the peripheral positions and 'tense' determine the form of the following element. ment in

'modal' An eleconstituent to

'modal'

position requires the following have infinitive form, an element in tense position requires the following constituent to have past participle form. The very first 1

element

of

a copulat.ive

syntagm

1

shows

person

and number

concord

with the subject. An element in •negation t position cannot be marked for person or number and it has no influence on the form of any of the other constituents of the syntagm. The elements in the peripheral positions do not determine way. The complex tactic rethe nucleus in a noticeably different determilation in the copulative syntagm is, therefore, parellel nation.

As

there

is

unlimited

combination

between

the

different

expansion types, three peripheral positions have to be set the model. Its generalized form can be represented as

negatio}modal tense

up in

> copula.

The following syntagms illustrate 'tense' and 'negation' + 'tense'.

combinations

of

Examples: hit mi3te han iben wel his Wille (FW87) it migfit have been well his will =it may well have been his will

nedde lust I-ben of mine moupe (FW100) not-had lust been of my mouth =if there had not been my gluttony

•modal•

+

47

Analysis:

negation:

03-

modal; m13te tense: han negation:

n}-

modal: o tense: hadde

> copula:

tben

> copula;

I-ben

3. The Passive syntagm Within

y,

the

the

passive

theoretical

syntagm

framework

needs

special

of AF chosen

for

this

stud-

justification.

In 1968 we find Mulder maintaining that there is no structural difference between a copulative predicative syntagm (e.g. was ill) and the

verbal part of a passive construction (e.g. was beaten).3 1 This 111 the position still taken by him today: 0ne sees that, unlike most other linguists, I regard the so-called tpassive' as a copulative predicative" (Mulder 1980 t 158). It 1s only consistent therefore that he does not set up a model of the passive syntagm for his description of PDE. In EMEthe passive voice is expressed by a form of ben 'be' or wurpen 'become' plus the past participle of a lexical verby Both elements are in mutual occurrence dependency. The syntactic relation between them is therefore either subordination or interordination. Both constituents can have other functions as well. Forms of ben can realize the nucleus of a copulative syntagm or the peripheral position 'tense• in an active verbal or in a copulative syntagm. Past participles can be nuclei of active verbal syntagrns. Whether a past participle has the function 'constituent of a passive syntagm' depends on the function of the other con0

stituent, relationship

and

interordinated.

vice holds

versa, between

since a mutual functional dependency the two constituents, i.e. they a.re

It could be argued that the situation

was the same

3 1·•we also see that it is not necessary at all to distinguish on the higher levels of analysis ... between ~assive and copulative (Mulder 968:86)

48

when ben had the function of a tense marker in an active verbal is easily refuted, since in an syntagm. However, thls ob)ection 1 active verbal syntagm of the form 'hen + past participle an , inflected verb commutes with this construction, thus establishing the form of the lexical verb as the nucleus of the syntagm. A second consideration supports the hypothesis of interordinat1on in the passive syntagm. If two isomorphic constructions (e.g. ben + past

have two different grammatical meanings {e.g. active, past 1passive), it fo1 lows that the syntactic relations between their constituents must be different, too. Otherwise the different grammatical meanings would be unaccounted for. The relation in the passive syntagm would also be different from that in the active verbal syntagm, if we assumed - as Mulder doesthat the past participle was subordinate to the form of ben. This would mean that the copula was the identity element of the syntagm, which determines its syntactic properties. This is not the case. The syntactic properties of the passive syntagm are partly partly by the other. Neidetermined by one of its constituents, ther of them can be called the identity element of the constru.ct1on. The past participle determines whether the passive syntagm can be expanded by an object ( cf. PDE I was g1 ven an apple {1 objects an apple)), the copula restricts the number of possible object expansions by one (cf. PDE he gave me an apple [2 objects; me, an apple]). The model of the EME passive syntagm contains therefore two equivalent positions; they will be called 'passive copula'

participle)

and

tpast

model which accounts passive

participle

1

•

The

formal

representation

for very simple realizations copula

past

of

a

is

participle.

In the discussion earlier of the relation between the constituents 'passive copula' and 'past participle,' only the element ben was mentionedT The reason for this was nwnerlcal: ben simply occurs much more frequently in 'passive copula' position than wurpen does. The two also involve somewhat different event-notions: ben expresses primarily a state, wurpen a process, although

49

this

is of secondary importance in syntactic analysis.32 The model developed so far accounts for passive

syntagrns

like the following. Examples:

hanged wurpe he on a hok (HK1102)

hanged be he on a hook

•may he be hanged on a hook parmide heop men acwalde (ON1370)

therewith are men killed =men are killed

Analysis:

with it

passive copulat wurpe

passive

copula:

beo~

hanged

past participle: past participle~

acwalde

Usually the nuclear position 'past pa~ticiple' is realized by just one plereme. Occazionally the position is occupied by two past participles which are connected by a conjunctlon.33

P?!"Ples1

hw he weren born and fedde (HK2984)

=how they were born and fed if pu art iworpe oper ishote (ON1121) =if you are hit or shot dead hit was swo i-seid and be-hote hwilem bi ~o profetes (KS26, 21 f. ) it was so said and promised whilom by the prophets =thus it was once said and promised by the prophets

The complex nucleus of the passive syntagm can be expanded by a number of peripheral elements. While the peripheral positions and

their

realizations

the

copulative

syntagm,

resemble they

those

are

not

of

the

active

completely

verbal

identical

and with

them.

The particles which are used for the negation of passive syntagrns are ne (with the positional variant n-, cf.Chapt.II.2.), !!231 and ne-no3l• Ne is considerably more frequent than the other two.

32The possibility of distinguishing between a static passive and a dynamic passive was lost in English when wurpen dropped out of use as a passive copula, 1.e. at the end of the ME period (cf. Mustanoja 1960:439). It was not until several centuries later that this distinction was reintroduced, when the aspect expansion was extended to the passive syntagm: "The passive was being_ built by X with overt progressive auxiliary •.. did not develop until the end of the eighteenth centuryu {Traugott 1972:144).

33syntagms of this type are called 'conjunctive tions'~ for their description cf. Chapt.VIII.

construc-

50

Examples: he nis parof bireued (ON120) he not-is thereof bereft =he is not bereaved of it [=his head] neren hi nouht ihud (PL645) not-were they not hidden

=they were not hidden

The 'modal• position can be realized by the auxiliaries schal a.nd willen. They require the following constituent

mot,

!!!!!J to

h~ve the

infinitive form. Comparing the possible elements in this peripheral position of the active verbal, the copulative and the passive syntagm, we note that their number decreases from syntagm to syntagm. Those with the highest frequencies in the active verbal syntagm are also recorded in the two other syntagms ~ those with a lower frequency in the active verbal syntagm also occur in the respective position in the copulative syntagm, but not in the passive syntagm: those with the lowest frequency in the active verbal syntagm are restricted to this construction.

EX!ffl!!les: ech ••• sal panne ben idemed (PM173) each ... shall then be judged =then everybody will be judged til his sone mohte •.. king ben maked of Denemark (HK378ff.) until his son might ••• king be made of Denmark =until his son could be made kin.g of Denmark The only auxiliary which can occupy the 'tense• position in a passive syntagm is habben *have•.3 4 It requires the past par-

ticiple

of the passive copula.

Examples: twien ~u hafuest

ibeon ouer-cwnmen (LB8325) you have been overcome ;you were overcome twice panne he hauede ben ofte swngen (HK226~ when he had been often beaten =when he had often been beaten twice

than

The nucleus of the passive syntagm can be expanded by more one peripheral element at the same time. As it cannot be de-

monstrated

that

the expansions

determine

the nucleus

in differ-

34.a.lthough it must be admitted that passive syntagms with a.n element in 'tense' position are not very frequent in EME, Mustas11.ghtly by quoting just two exnoja misrepresents the situation amples (Mustanoja 1960: 440). The Havelok text alone provides

fourteen.

51

ent

ways,

the complex tactic relation in the passive syntagm is determination.. The combination of a 'negation 1 and a

parallel 'modal' expansion ls quite

frequent.

Examples: hit it =it pis

ne moste ifulled bean (VP142) not must baptized be could not be baptized selkouth mihte nouht ben hyd (HK1059) this wonder might not be hidden =this

wonder could not be concealed

Thus the model of the passive syntagm must contain the two peripheral positions •negation' and 'modal'. An element in •tense• po:si tion, however, excludes any other peripheral element. This striking difference between the EME and the PDE passive syntagm can be explained by the observation that 1n EME 'tense' expansions

of passive syntagrns were not yet well integrated in the language system, as is also suggested by their low fcequency. A model of the passive syntagm which accounts two alternatives in its peripheral

for this situation must provide part; one alternative containing the two positions 'negation' and 'modal', the other only one position, ·tense'. This model can be represented as3 5

negation/ modal The examples

tense }-

with

> (passive

elements

copula

in peripheral

past participle)

positions

are analysed

as

negation: modal:

0

neJ / tense:

negation: modal: 0

n1tense:

35The

tpass.cop.;

t-,

(pass.eop.:

is

weren

p.p.:

p.p.:

indicates alternat1 ve poss1bil1 ties slash braces are not available when one alternative contains

one position.

bireued)

ihud)

here,

as

more than

52

negation: modal: sal negation:

o/tense: 0

modal; mohte negationl

modal: o negation:

0

f

ense:

(pass .cop.:

3-->

(pass.cop.:

/tense, J hafuesL>

o /

modal: moste

tense:

ben

p.p.:

idemed)

ben

p.p.:

maked)

(pas.s.cop.1

3--> 3--

(pass.cop.,

negation: nouht/ tense: modal.: mihte

0

> (pass.cop.:

ibeon

P•P•,

ifulled)

ouer-cwnmen)

beon

p.p.,

ben

P·P~= hyd)

Elements in peripheral positions of the passive syntagm do not restrict the realization possibilities of the nuclear positions. The following syntagm illustrates a combination of two participles connected by a. conjunction in the position 'past participle', and an element in the peripheral position 'tense'. Example: unto pis (HK1433f.)

unto this

[ilke]

day haue ich ben fed and fostred

very day have I been fed and fostered

ay

ever

=to this very day I have always been fed and fostered

Analysis,

negation:

modal: O

0/ tense:

3---

haue

> (pass.cop.:

p.p.:

ben fed and fostred)

III.

NOMINAL SYNTAGMS

1. The Substantival

Syntagm

The simplest

realization of this construction is a substanis why I call it 'substantival syntagm'. Names like

tive, and this 'noun phrase', 'nominal group' t 'nominal syntagm', etc. are misbecause by evoking the dichotomy verb; noun they imply leading, that they also cover constructions with other than substantival nuclei (e.g. pronominal_ 4dject1val). The structure of the substant1val syntagm 1s much more complex than that of the syntagms described earlier. A separate study would be needed to develop an exhaustive model of this construction. The model presented here can account only for the most frequent realizations of the syntagm in my d4t4. 1 One of the most striking differences between the EME subis that in DIE the occurstant1val syntagm and its PDE equivalent rence of singular forms of so-called 'count nouns' as unexpanded

nuclei

1s not restricted

to special

env1ronments. 2

Ex!:ffl.Ples; hwa swa sloge

heart odde hlnde (PC1087,119) whosoever slew hart or hind ;;the person who killed a hart or a hind one frogge [pat sit at mulne vnder coggeJ (ON85f.) a frog that sits at [the) mill under {the) cog-wheel •a frog that sits under the mill-wheel

Substantival nuclei can be expanded by various peripheral elements. The following passage• illustrate s\lbstantival syntagm.s which are expanded by adjectives. 1Mulder's model of the

'nominal syntagm', which he developed for the description of PDE, is not powerful enough to handle all realizations of the construction either (Mulder 1980z1S4f.)1 it does not even cover all those substantival nuclei with only premodification (e.g. the other important contribution, his only important

contributionJ,

2For these

let

environments

alone postmodlfied cf.

nuclei.

GCE §4.14 NOte(a}

54 wil,de dor (0N1012) ::::wild animals

mid mycelan here (PC1090,13f.) =with a big army

position may also be realized by more complex syntagms which have an adjective as one of their nuclear constituents, and for this reason the position will be called 'adjectival syntagm' .3 The generalized form of this part of the substan-

The same peripheral

tival

syntagm

is

adjectival Among the

syntagm ->

more complex

substantive.

realizations

of the

position

I

a.djecti val

syntagm' are coordinated adjectives, adjectives which themselves are expanded by peripheral elements, and combinations of adjectives which are linked by a conjunction.

Examples: patt lape riche flocc (OR3990) =that hateful rich flock wel bli~e mon (FB698) =a very joyful man weder ful god (FB70t

=very nice weather

swa swide ungemetlice

mycel wind (Pc:1118,16)

[a] so very terribly big wind ;such a terribly strong wind

Seftes ..• leide & lodlike (B356£.) =hateful and loathsome creatures sut,e fair and hende mon (FB156) =a very handsome and friendly man There is a tendency

to place the adjectival

the substantival nucleus. to a reverse arrangement also

be realized

presentation

of may, however, lead

syntagrn in front

Metrical constraints of the ICs. The adjectival

as a discontinuous

of the analysis

constituent.

syntagm The formal

may re-

of the above examples is

adj.synt.: (lat,e riche) --> subst.: flocc4 adj. synt. ; (wel --> blipe) --> subst. ; mon adj. synt. adj.synt.:

: ( ful --> god) --> (swa swi6e ungemetlice

subst. -->

3For

the

4 The

plereme ~att is not included

r11.2.

description

of

the

: weder mycel)

adjectival

in this

-->

syntagm

analysis.

subst.: wind cf.

Chapt.

55 adj.synt.: adj.synt.:

(le1de ((supe

& lodlike)) fair)

subst.: (and hende))

seftes -> subst.:

mon

Elements 1n the 'adjectival syntagm' position co-occur with a number of other peripheral constituents. These include possessive pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, articles, numerals, and indefinite pronouns. EXamples1 possessive

pronouns=S

hore wode wise (ON1029) =their crazy habits leuene mine fadre ~LB3549)

dear my father =mybeloved father

his lemman hende (FB820} his darling pretty =:his pretty love demonstrative

pronouns:

pis hali3 godspel (BH4,1) =this holy gospel l)at rnaide hende (FB478) =that pretty girl articles: 6

a gud mascun (FB326)

;a competent mason pe gret parel (VP12)

=the great peril numerals;

twa gildene scrinen =two gold shrines

fiftene

mycele roden

=15 big crosses

(PC1070,31) tPC1070,32)

5Possessive pronouns usually precede the substantival nucleus, but occasionally- follow it, e.g. wordes his (FB7S7) 'his words' 6Inflected forms of the definite And the indefinite article are quite frequent, e.g. in per sa: (PM83) 'in the sea', l!l'lne bro6er (LBSS6) •a brother•. 6

56

indefinite

pronouns;7

non .•. sturne mon (FB701) •no stern man sum ha11 3 biscop (BH16,6)

=a certain

holy bishop

This evidence suggests that the constituents with an adjecelements either realize at tival nucleus and the other peripheral le~st two different peripheral positions, or they are coordinated in one position. Coordination implies, however, that the coordinated elements belong to the same d1str1but1on class. This 1s not

the case for adJecttval

syntagms and all

the other constituents,

and consequently at least two peripheral pos1t1ons have to be distinguished in the model ·Of the substantival syntagm. The com-

plex

tactic

pansions

relation is parallel determination, because the exdo not determine the nucleus in noticeably different

ways. If none of the expansions illustrated above excluded any of the others, the nwnber of peripheral positions would be identical with the number of expansions. This is certa.inly not the case. As the structure of the PDE substantival syntagm differs from that of the corresponding OE construction, we expect that the EMEsubstantival

.syntagm

will

share

some

properties

with

the

OE con-

struction, some with the PDE. OE possessive and demonatratlve pronouns do not belong to the same paradigmatic class; they CAfl expand the same substantival nucleus. 8 In PDE they exclude each other as expansions of a substantival syntagm. 9 In my EME data

elements of these two classes of pronouns do not occur together, i.e. they realize the same peripheral position. The same position by a definite or indefinite artiele. A8 the8e can also be realized elements serve to pick out a closed set of the objects denoted by the substantive, I shall call this peripheral position 'deicticum • • The generalized form of the model of the substanti val

syntagrn developed so far 1s 7cenerally

indefinite pronouns precede the nucleusJ the neno(n) sometimes follows it, e.g. ioie none (FB106)

8cf.

Pilch

1970:219

9cf.

GCE §4.27

gation particle 'no joy'.

57

deictic}adj.synt. Its

application

> substantive. .

to the examples yields deicticum:

hor}-

adj .synt.:

wode

de1cticwn:

mine}leuene

a.dj. synt.:

the following

> subst.:

>

adj,synt.:

his hend~>

deictic:um:

t,is }-

wise

su.bst.:

7-~-

deicticwn:

subst.

fadre

: lemrnan

subst.;

godspel

hali

>

deicticum:

l:)at }-

adj.synt.:

hende

> subst .. : maide

adj. synt.

deicticum:

adj .synt., deicticwn: adj. synt.:

z

L>

a gu~

pe

gret

subst.:

analyses:

mascun

J->

subst. , parel

As is the case in other periods, in EMEthe semantic relation •possess.ive• can be expressed not only by a possessive pronoun, but also by a substantive in genitive case. This substantive may or may not be expanded. Constructions of this type are called here •genitival syntagm•. 10 This means that a genitival syntagm can also realize the position 'deicticum'.

1°For the description

of this syntactic

type cf. Chapt.IV,4.

58

Exameies:

Godes rice

(BH2,13)

=God's realm

blauncheflures

chaumbre (FB479)

=Blancheflure's

Analysis:

dei.cticum:

chamber

~de},

adj .synt.; deicticumt

subst.,

rice

J

bolaunc:hef lureL>

adj. synt.

1

subst.:

chaumbre

As a rule,

the genitive case is marked by an inflectional ending, although occasionally this ending is lacking (the so-called zero genitive). Such substantival syntagms in 'deicticum' position usually precede the substantival nucleus, but they may also follow it.

f;Xamples: his fader chawnberlein (FB18) =hls father's chamberlain his leue moder luue (PL704) =his dear mother's love blisse daies preo (LLJS) bliss three days =three days• bliss

Analysist

deicticumt adj.synt

•• 0

fade}, subst.:

deicticwn:

his leue mode}

~dj. synt.:

0

deicticwn:

daies

adj.

The function

his

synt.

1

O

of a genitival

postponed possessive

J>

preL

EXample1 pe king his fader

=the king's

father

> subst.:

subst.:

syntagm may also

pronoun. (FB797)

chaumberlein

luue

bliss be indicated

by a

59

Analysis:

deicticum:

pe king

adj.synt.:

0

The positions

occupied

hiL j>

subst.:

fader

pronouns in EMEdiffer somewhat from those possible in POE. In PDE they realize the same peripheral position as possessive pronouns, articles, demonstrative pronouns and genitival syntagms, cf. expensive

my the

by indefinite

books

these the old man's some

In EME, in contrast,

in 'deicticum'

indefinite

pronouns

co-occur

with elements

position.

Examples; sume pa munecas (PC1083,2S) some the monks

=some monks/some of the monks heore ineward vych del

(VP151)

their inwards every part =every part of their inwards

example illustrates a definite article/demonstrative pronoun, the second a genitival syntagrn (zero genitive) in 'deicticwn' position. The nuclei munecas and~ are not marked for case. In EMEsingular case endings had already been dropped with the exception of genitive. Case opposition in the plural was rare, the !-ending having been extended to all plural forms. This resulted 1n the confusion of two formerly distinct constructions. In OE the indefinite pronouns could either realize a peri.pheral position in a substantival syntagrn (e.g. hilderinc sum (Bwf3124) •some/a warrior') or the nuclear position of a pronominal syntagm. In this latter construction the pronominal nucleus could be exsyntagm (e.g. gumena sum (Bwf1499, 'one of panded by a genitival the men'}. OE pronominal syntagms of this type had a partitive meaning. When the case endings were dropped, the two constructions became isomorphic. Only the context al lows us to disambiguate constructions like sume his seferan. 11 It may mean 'some of his The

first

11cf.

the title

of T. Heltve1t*s

article

(cf.

Bibliography)

60

friends', implying that he has more than these, or 'some friends of his• , without further information about the number of this person's friends. As these PDE paraphrases show, one of the meanings was expressed differently after the end of the ME period,

when the construction

'some friends of his' became available. In contexts where the partitive meaning was important, EME had the alternative of an unambiguous pronominal syntagm followed by a prepositional syntagm which was introduced by partitive£! (e.g. sume of dam cnihten (PC1083,17) 'some of the warriors'). The isomorphism of the two constructions explains why in EME indefinite pronouns could co-occur with elements in 'deicticum•

position, Syntagms of the form 'indefinite pronoun + possessive pronoun, article, demonstrative pronoun, or gen1t1val syntagm + ••• + substantive' are syntactically ambiguous in EME. They ma.y rea112e a substantival or a pronominal syntagrn. If they realize a substantival syntagm, the indefinite pronouns are in a different peripheral

position

from 'deicticwn'.

be called 'quantifier', because the elements which realize it denote a certain quantity. After its integration into the model of the substantival syntagm, its generalized form is

quantifie}-

It will

> substantive.

deicticum adj.synt.

The analysis of the examples with indefinite eral position is

quantifier: deicticwn: adj.synt.: quantifier:

non}

0 sturne

sum}-

de1cticum; O adj.synt.2

hali3

>

pronouns

> subst.:

mon

subst.:

biscop

The following syntagms illustrate combinations nouns with elements in the position 'deicticwn'.

in a periph-

of indefinite

Examples: znig his foregenga (PC1087,64) any hi5 predecessor =one of his predecessors/a predecessor

of his

pro-

61

swu his pe3ena {BH18,5) some his servants =one of his servants/a servant

Analysis:

quantifier: deicticurni

ami}his

quantifier: deicticum:

s1his 0

adj.synt.:

adj.synt.s

>

0

>

of his

subst •• foregenga

subst.:

pe 3enz

The examples with numerals in a peripheral position have not yet been analysed. Whereas numerals do not exclude constituents in the position 'adjectival syntagm' and also co-occur with elements in the position 'deicticum', they exclude indefinite pronouns in front of the same nucleus. This means that cardinal numbers and indefinite pronouns realize the same position, namely 'quantifier'. EXamples: hi.re armes tweie

(KH301)

=her two arms

pat on cupe (FB438} =that on.e flower-pot pa twegen kyngas {PC1O7O,45)

•the two kings

The model of the substantival ified to allow the analysis in a peripheral position. Analysis:

quantifier: deicticum: adj.synt.:

quantifier: deicticum:

adj.synt.:

quantifier=

de~cticwn: adJ .synt.:

syntagm does not require to be modof the examples with cardinal numbers

twa

o gildene

0

J-

fiften}-

mycele twei}

hire O

> .!lub.st.:1 serinen

> subst.:

> subst.:

roden

armes

62 quantifier: de~cticum: adJ.synt.:

o}-

pat

quantifier1

twegej-

deicticum: pa adj.synt.:

>

0

There are also substantival three peripheral positions. Example:

Analysis:

kyngas

syntagms with elements in all

tw}-

quantifier: deicticum:

> subst.:

his adj. synt. : gode

from spelling

forms which still

in PDE, it

subst.;

h1s gode kn13tes two (KH49) ;his two brave knights

Since apart flected

cupe

> subst.:

0

kni3tes

differences

and occasional

in-

occur in EME, the forms are the same as

is not necessary

to enwnerate

the individual

items

which belong to the morphological cla.sses demonstrative pronoun, article, and possessive pronoun. The situation is slightly difpronouns. This class comprises the eleferent for the indefinite ments no (variant non), al(le}, an1, nan13, swu(e~, ech, fela, mani, Unlike in PDE, this last element combines with singular and plural forms of substantives. When it expands singular substan12 it has the variant man! a. tives, Examples~ moni wunrnon (ON1393t amany a woman

rnani wisdom ION1756~ :many a wise judgement song mani elne (ON759}

=manya song

selcudes

rnanie (8441)

=manywonders

Mustanoja

(1960:216)

12soth variants

also

includes

are still

oper in his list

current

of indefinite

1n Modern High German. The

EME syntagm moni wummon could be translated ma.nch eine Frau. In PDE only many a survives singular su6stantives.

as manche Frau as an expansion

or of

63

may be justified from a morphological point of view, but the syntactic properties of ober differ from those of the elements mentioned before. It cannot realize the peripheral position 'quantifier•, because it does not exclude an expansion by another element in this position. pronouns.

This

Examples: non oper heuene (FB553) =no other heaven eni oper note (ON557) =any other usefulness sumne oderne mon (BHJ0,27) =some other man fif 7 twenti o6re cnihtes

(PC1124,11f.)

=25 other warriors

As oper also combines with elements in the positions and 'adjectival syntagm', we must conclude that it

separate

peripheral

position

of its

'deicticum'

realizes

a

own.

Ex!!!!eles: deo oder acennednysse {BH4, 15£.) =the other birth pat oper ping (ON784) •that other thing oper wi3te

gente & smale (ON204) =other smart and graceful creatures

Adopting the terminology 'ordinal'

• 13 The enlarged

used in GCE, I shall mode 1 of

the

call

substanti

this val

position

synta.gm

is

now

quantifier deicticum

ordinal

> substantive.

adj.synt.

This version of the model is powerful the examples quoted above.

13cf. GCE§4.22. As in PDE, this ized by ordinal .numbers, e.g. day' ;'on the third day'.

enough for the analysis

position

pe pridde

of

can a1so be real-

day (FB4JO) 'the

third

64

Analysis:

quantifier: deicticum:

ordinal:

O deo

> subst. ; acennednysse

o6er

ad j • synt • : O

quantifier:

0

de1ct1cum.; pat

> subst.;

ordinal: ot;,er adj.synt.: O quantifier: deict.icwn:

ordinal:

ping

non O

> subst.

oper

: heuene

adj • synt. : O

quantifier:

deicticum: ordinal: adj.synt.: quantifier: deicticum1

eni

o

> subst. : note

oper O sumne 0

ordinal: adj,synt,:

oderne O

quantifier: deicticumz

0

fif

> subst. ; mon

1 twenti > subst.:

ordinal: odre adj .synt.: o quantifier: deicticum:

o

ordinal: adj.synt.:

ot,er gente

cnihtes

0

&

smale

It can also be used for the analysis

of more complex construc-

tions.

Examples: an oper clene stede (ON590) =another clean place

65

his an oder castel

(PC1124,6)

•his one other castle mani an oi>er d1rewert,e ston (FB289) many an other precious

stone

~manyother precious stones fela odre godre cnihtes (PC1124,11f.) =many other

Analysis:

valiant

quantifier:

an

deicticum:

O

ordinal.

ot,er .. : clene

adj.synt

quantifier:

his

stede

> subst. : castle

oder .. : 0

quantifier: de1cticum: ordinal: adj.synt.:

> subst.1

an

deicticum:

ordinal: adj.synt

warr.i.ors

mani an 0

> subst.:

ston

oper direwerpe

quantifier; deicticwn:

0

fela:

ordinal : odre adj.synt.z godre

> subst.=

cnihtes

The elements which realize the peripheral positions of the model of the substantival synt.agm developed so far usually precede the nuclus of the construction. They do not exclude expansions

which follow the nucleus. Examples,

po prie kinges of he~enesse {KS26,7) the three kings of the orient

.the three Magi insi 3t in eche songe (ON194) insight into each song =insight into every song one pipe of one smale wode unripe

(ON319f.)

a pipe of a thin wood unripe ;a pipe made of a piece of thin green wood

The relation

between

the

substa.ntiva.l

nuclei

and

the

syntagms

66

which follow

them is easily

established. As there between the two constituents,

is

unilateral

occurrence dependency the tactic relation between them is subordination. The characteristic element of this kind of expansion is a preposition. l 4 The constituents which realize it need not always follow the nucleus; the metrical structure of verse texts, for example, may require a different

arrangement

of the ICs.

Example: of opere[5] songe ••. plaiding supe stronge (ON11f.) of [the) other's song ••. plea very fierce •a very fierce debate about each other's singing Post-nuclear expansions of substantival syntag:ms can also be realized by other constructions. The following syntagms illustrate some of the possibilities.

Examples: pe louerd pat ous hauep wrout (DS112) the Lord that us has wrought =the Lord who made us

o da1 pat he ferde to wde (KH938f.} a day that he went into [the) wood =a day when he went into the wood time for to gonge (HK1739) =time to go ~a adas ... his dohter pamcasere

to gifene

(PC1109,4f.)

the oaths ••• his daughter to-the emperor to give =the oaths to give his daughter to the emperor pi wile ••• pat pu me kni3ti woldest {KH643f.) your will .•. that you me knight would

=your intention

to knight

me

bi-liaue pet·he was diadlich pet diath solde 5Uffr1 for man-ken ~KS27,27f.) belief that he was mortal that death should suffer for mankind =the belief that he waa mortal, that he should suffer death for mankind ore uaste picke hegge Imeind mid spire & grene segge (ON17)

•an impenetrable and green sedge trou wel grete (ON615ff.)

th1c.k hedge interspersed ••• Mid iui

with reeds

grene al bigrowe

tree very big ••. with ivy green all overgrown =a very big tree all overgrown with ivy 14For the description

of the •prepositional

syntagm' cf. Cllapt.IV.1.

67

Considering

the structure of the POE substantival syntagm.1 we expect expansions with finite and others with non-finite verb forms. Among the expansions with finite verb forms, relative 15 clauses are the most frequent 1n English of all perlods. In EHE relative clause expansions do not exclude expansions by preposi-

tional

syntagms.

Examples: se king of gyus pet was i-bore

the king of Jews that was born

(KS26,14f.)

=the king of the Jews who was born

si glorius tel~

seywinge of ure lordes beringe

t>et hol1

godespel

t::;~us

of te day (KS2.7, 16f.) the glorious showing of our Lordts birth that tells the holy gospel of the day

=the glorious heralding of our Lord•s birth the holy gospel of today tells us

us

which

The co-occurrence of these two kinds of expansions makes us enlarge the model of the substant1val syntagm by two more positions. They

will

be

supplement';

'prepositional

la.belled

the generalized

supplement•

and

1

relative

form of the model is now

quantifier

deict1cum ordinal adjectival

> substantive.

syntagm

prepositional supplement relative supplement It allows

the analysis

Analysis:

quantifier: deicticum:

ordinal:

adj.synt.:

O

t,o

o

> subst.:

of het,enesse

of this

16The syntagm is ambiguous; as an expansion

us ber.1.nge.

kinges

O

15For the description terpre~ed

quoted above.

prie

prep ..suppl.:

rel.suppl.:

of some of the examples

syntactic

type cf.

the relative

of the nucleus

se~inge

Chapt.VII.2.

clause can be inor of the nucle-

68

quantifier: deicticum:

ordinal:

O

O

o

>

o

adj.synt.:

subst.:

1nsi3t

prep. suppl . ; in eche songe rel. suppl.: 0

o

quantifier: deicticumt

ordinal:

o

adj. synt.:

one

> subst. : pipe 0

prep.suppl.~ of one smale wode unripe rel.suppl.; O quantifier: 0 deicticum: 0 ordinalt o adj.synt.:

prep.suppl.;

su~e stronge

of ot,ere[s]

rel.suppl.:

0

quantifier; deicticum;

O pe

ordinal:

o

> subst.:

plaiding

> subst.

: l ouerd

songe

adj .synt.: 0 prep. suppl . : 0

pat ous hauet, wrout

rel.euppl.:

quantifier= deicticum:

ordinal:

o

O O > subst • t dai

ad j • s yn t . : 0

prep.suppl.: rel.suppl.,

0

pat he ferde to wude

quantifier: o deicticum! se ordinal: o

adj.synt.: o prep.suppl.: of gyus rel.suppl.: l)et was i-bore

> subst.

: king

69

quantifier: O deicticum: si o ordinal:

adj.synt.:

glorius

prep.suppl.:

of ure lordes beringe ~et us telp ~et

rel.suppl.;

holi

The PDE equivalent

> subst.1

godespel

of the other expansion in GCE. 17 Whereas

is called •appos1t1ve clause' tory ~ is obligatory in appositi

conjunctions

seywinge

ve clauses,

with a finite

verb

in PDE introducEMB allows other

as well, such as hu 'how•. red pat Riwald kinge iwerd dead {LB3910f.) =a hard fate that king Riwald died tidende •.. hu ~eking Rodric his rzflac makede (LB9936ff.) =tidings that King Rodric was ravaging

EXamples: a strong

Appositive clauses commute with appositive infinitive tions And do not exclude expansions by pI"epositional relative clauses.

Examples: tidende

construcsyntAgms or

pat him wzs ser pat icwnen wes Julius

Cezar

(LB7418f.}

tidings that him were unpleasant that come was Julius Caesar =ne~s which was un~leasant to him, that Julius Caesar had arrived paet word .•• paetwas widene cud paet be king Latin 3ef Lauine his douter Eneam to are brude (LB160ff.} that word •.. that was widely known that the king Latin gave Lavine his daughter to-Eneas as a bride =the news which was widely known that King Latin betrothed his daughter Lavine to Eneas The consequence of this situation

is that a new peripheral

tion, which will be labelled 'appos1 ti ve supplement' integrated into the model of the substantival syntagrn. alized form is then

17c£. §13.16£.

posi, must be Its gener-

70

quantifier

deicticum ordinal adjectival syntagm prepositional supplement relative supplement appositive supplement

> substantive.

This now allows us to analyse yet more examples used for the illustration of syntagms 1n ·supplement• pos1t1ons. 18 Analysis:

The 'appositive

infinitive

for to gong~> pa } his dohter pam Casere to gifene

Th.e 'apposi t.i ve supplement' si ti ve clause:

deicticum: app.suppl.:

pi

pat

}

pu me

kn13ti woldest deicticum:

app.suppl.:

is realized

by

subst.= time > suhst.:

1s realized

> subst.

adas

by an appo-

: wile

a

adj . synt. : strong app.suppl.;

position

constructions:

app.suppl.i deicticum: app.suppl.:

supplement•

> subst.

bat Riwald

: rzd

kinge iwerd dead

hu pe king } Rodric his raflac makede

> subst.:

2}-

rel. suppl. 1 t,at him we. app. suppl. ; bat icwnen wes

Julius

Cezar

18From now on empty positions

> subst.

tidende

: tidende

are omitted in th.e analyses.

71 deicticumt

rel.suppl.: app.suppl.:

p.zt

pa:t was widene cud

pzt pe king Latin 3ef

> subst.

Lauine his douter

:word

Eneam to are b:r:ude

The 'appositive supplement• is realized coordinated appositive clauses: app.suppl.:

pet

he was diadlich >

pet diath solde suffri for man-ken

by two

subst.:bl-liaue

In PDE relative clause expansions commute with two kinds of participial constructions: the characteristic element of one is a present participle, that of the other, the past participle of a lexical verb, e.g. a famous poet living in Paris, a famous poem written after the Second World War. Substantival syntagms with past participle constructions as postmodifiers are recorded from 19 the OE period onwards. It is therefore not surprising that my EMEdata provide a substantial number of syntagms which illustrate this postmodifier, Like relative expansions they combine freely supplement' position. 20 with eXPansions in •prepositional an god f locc of p.restess, Sprungenn strenedd ~urrh himm (OR510f.)

=a good flock of priests, ten by him

off

himm,

descended from him, begot-

Visser (1963-73:§1010) also quotes examples ple constructions in peripheral positions

with present particiof substantival syn-

tagms. However, most of his examples illustrate present participles rather than present participle constructions. Both types of expansions

are

recorded

for

EME, too - neither

very

frequently.

Present participles realize the same position as adjectives, namely that of 'adjectival syntagmt. Like adjectives they precede the constructions, on the substanti val nucleus. Present participle 19et. Visser

(1963-73z§1141)

20For the description

of participial

constructions

cf. Cha.pt.VII .J.

72

other hand, fol low the relative expans1ons.21

substanti

val

nucleus;

conunute with

they

EXamples, man! wepinde eie (FB742) =many a weeping eye Lazarus ••• fule pa stincende (BH26,4f.) •Lazarus stinking then foully pe children ••• Wringinde here hende {KH111f.) -the children wringing their hands Apart from ordinary relative clauses the 'relative supplement ' position can thus also be re&lized by participial construct.ions. A fourth syntactic type which realizes the same peripheral

position

is the infinitive

without subject. 22

construction

Example; faire gomes Wip him for to pleie {KH22f.) =noble youths to keep him company This construction occurs also nominal constituents deleted.

in a reduced

form, with one of its

EX!!!!Ple: scheld TO fi3te Wi~ vpon ~ feld (KH513f.) =a shield to fight with on the battle-field

Consequently, for the analysis of the substantival syntagms not yet presented the model need not be modified. It has simply to be born in mind that the label 'relative supplement' must not be identified with 'relative clause in peripheral position•, but that this position can be realized by a variety of constructions. The application of the following analysesi deicticwns

adj.synt.:

rel.suppl.:

ore

uaste

the

picke

Imeind mid spire

adj • synt . : wel -->

rel.suppl.:

model to

&

remaining

examples

}>

grene

grete

segge

L>

Mid iui grene al bigrow:r-

subst.:hegge

subst.:

21cf.fn.20

22This syntactic

type is described

yields

in Chapt.VII.1.

trou

the

73

de1ct1cum: an adj.synt.1

god

of prestess

prep.suppl.: rel. suppl.

1

quantifieri

Sprungen of him

}->

fule pa stlncende

deicticum:

~e Wringinde

rel.suppl.:

To fi3te

rel.suppl.s

eie

1

-->

here hende

> subst.;

wi~ vpon pe feld

L>

faire Wip him for to plei:_i

2. The Adjectival

subst.:

}-

rel.suppl.i

synt.

subst.:

wepinde

rel.suppl.:

adj.

flocc

strenedd pur:rh himrn mani

adj.synt.:

> subst.:

-->

subst.:

Lazarus

children subst.:

scheld

gomes

Syntagm

The label tadjectival syntagm' is motivated by the nucleus which is reali2ed by an adjective. Adjectives of the construction, may be expanded in various ways. The most frequent expansion is hy adverbs.

Examplesi to long (ON343) =too long swide fagen (8415) •very glad ful brihte

-very bright

(PM75)

Most of these adverbs have an intensifying meaning, e.g. to ttoo 1 swide, wel 'very', ~, al •completely', ~, eus 'so', iliche 'equally• , and for this reason the peripheral position they realize in the model of the ad)ectival syntagm will be called '1ntens1f ler • . The adverbs in this pos1 tion can themselves be 1

expanded.

74

Example: al to wlonc (ON489)

:all

too wanton

on principle, adverbs in any position are expandable by other adverbs. This recursiveness would theoretically allow an unlimited sequence of adverbs in the '1ntensif ier' position. In the most is expanded complex syntagm of this type in my data, the adjective by an IC which consists of three adverbs. Example! swa swide ungemetlice rnycel wind (PC1118,16) =a so very terribly strong wind

The generalized form of the model of the adjectival syntagrn which accounts for the syntactic structur-e of the above examples is

intensifier--> Its application to the the following analyses:

intensifier: intensifier; intensifier:

adjective.

adjectival

syntagms

quoted

so far

yields

to-> adjective: long swioe -> adjective: fagen ful --> adjective: brihte

intensifier: (al--> in tens. = ( swa -->

very often

to}-->

{ swi6e -->

adjectives

adjective: wlonc ungemetl ice) ) -->

are nuclei

adj. : mycel

of comparative

construct1ons, in which case the adjective occurs in its comparative form, i.e. its stem is followed by the comparative affix :.!E· There is unilateral occurrence dependency between this affix as nucleus

and several other ICs, e.g. the particle~ 'the' {as in PDE the more, the better) and constructions which are introduced by panne than• (as in PDE purer than gold). 23 The affix -er itself is 1

unilaterally occurrence-dependent on an adjective, and the comparative affix is therefore to be analysed as an expansion of the adjectival nucleus as well as the nucleus of expansions like~ and ~nne-conatruc:tiona.24 23 constructions

of

this

('The Comparative Syntagm• ).

type

are

described

in

Chapt. IV. 3.

24My treatment of comparative-constructions differs from that Mulder proposed for PDE. He considers the comparative affix (or its equivalent more) and the particle than together as one, discontinuous, IC.Tli'Is analysis is basedonthe fallacious assurnp-

75

E>camplesz wisure

pane he (ON1250}

=wiser than he

... panne atter irnaingd mid wine (PM144) =better than poison mixed with wine pe gladur (ON19) =the gladder betere

As

the same adjective

can be preceded by an adverb and folaffix, 1t might seem as if the two con-

lowed by the comparative stituents realized different peripheral positions in the adjectival syntagm. This hypothesis has to be refuted, however; because in constructions of this type the adverb is not an expansion of the adjective, but of the comparative affix.

Examples: hundredfealde

hotter panne is vre {PM249) hundredfold hotter than is ours =a hundred times hotter than ours muchele more and betere panne alle opre pinges· (PM388)

=much bigger

and better

than all

other

things

Thus the model of the adjectival syntagm is also able to account for the analysis of the constructions with adjectival nuclei which are expanded by comparative constructions. Analysis:

adj. : glad

hundred£ ealdJ ( panne

hot

-~>

is vre

J

tion of a bilateral occurrence dependency between the two element:11 "if we take the item more as basic, the item than is compulsory, and, therefore, nottimctional, and if we take than as basic:, more is not functional (Mulder 1980:169t. In PDE, just as in EME,"tli'"e occurrence of the comparative affix (or more) does 0

not depend on the occurrence of a than/paine-construction, cf. ich am J?e blipur euer more (ON1108) ;'""!am t e gayer ever more•. 25The comparative

affix

is

represented

in

a

'no.rmalized'

form. The arrangement of the ICs in the analyses 1s irrelevant as far as possible, it mirrors the arrangement in the data.

J

76

intena.

J->

a ( muchele panne alle opre pin9es

-> Adjectives

adj.:

(muchel

no ~ing -->

adj.

t

unorne

adj.:

long

When an intensifying adverb and a negation particle co-occur in front of the same adjective, the negation particle either modifies only the adverb or a complex nucleus consisting of ~he adverb and ita adjectival nucleus, cf. PDE not very long. Depending on its meaning. this syntagrn has to be analysed as ((not--> very t --> long) or (not --> ( very --> long) } . Similarly, a negation particle which precedes the comparative form of an adjective either expands the comparative affix alone or it expands the complex nucleus which consists of the adjectival nucleus and the comparative affix. The first alternative seems to be appropriate in non-contrastive (=neutral) environments. Example: nowiht lesse

•not less

Analysis:

intens.:

Adjectives

(PM214)

{nowiht ->-er)->

adj.:

can also be expa.nded by prepositional

lytel syntagms. 2 7

Such expansions do not exclude an element in 'intensifier' position and the model of the adjectival syntagm must be enlarged by 26The comparatives~ and betere belong to suppletive paradigms; the corresponding positive forms are muchel and god. 27This syntactic type is described in Chapt.IV.1.

77

one peripheral position, called here •supplement'. 'Prepositional supplement would be too specific a label for this, suggesting that only prepositional syntagms could occupy this position, which i

is not the case. P~onominal syntagrns, substantival synta~, niti val syntagms, in£ initi ve constructions and ~-clauses commute with prepositional syntagms in this position.

geall

Examples; icundur to one frogge (ON85) :more natural to a frog to gredi

of selvere

and of golde

=too greedy for silver oper vniliche

(PM266)

and gold

(PM358)

=unlike the other a meiden ilike (B442)

=resembling a girl eches godes ful (PH369) =full of every good thing 'ir11.1rd1to hauen same (8346) worthy

to have shame

=deserving shame

iwar ~at ho song hire

a bisemar

(ON147f.)

aware that she sang her a mockery f!AWAre of her singing to mock her The elements

position and in •supplement' position do not determine the adjectival nucleus in noticeably different ways. Consequently, the complex tactic relation in the adjecti

in *intensifierr

vAl .synta.gm

construction

i.s

pAral lel

can be represented

1ntens1f1eJsupplement This model accounts presented so far. Analysis:

intens.:

for

determination

suppl.z

the

mode 1 of

> adjective.

the syntactic

structure

of all

examples

-er > adj . : icunde

to of selvere

the

as

suppl . : to one frogge }-

intens.:

and

and of golde }-

> adj.;

gredi

78

}->

intens,; o suppl.: ol;)er intens.:

suppl.:

0

}-

1ntens.: suppl.:

3. The Pronominal

ilike

0

supp l . : eches

suppl.:

vniliche

> adj.:

a meiden

intens.:

intens.

adj.:

=

godes }-

0

to hauen same}-

> adj.s

ful

> adj.:

O

wurdi

}-

~at ho song hire a bisemar

> adj.:

lwar

Syntagm

In the description of the substantival syntagrn it became evident that some pronouns (e.g. possessive, demonstrative, indefinite pronouns) can function as expansions of substa.nti va.l nuclei. In this function the pronouns can themselves be expanded. Al- though these expansions have an intensifying meaning comparable to that of the elements in the peripheral position 'intensifier•

of

the

adjectival

syntagm,

the

peripheral

position

in

the

pronominal syntagrn requires a different label, because there is only partial over lap between the elements which realize the two functions. Moreover, in the pronominal syntagm the choice of posclass of the sible expansions is governed by the m.orphological nucleus. Possessive pronouns can be expanded by o e 'own', demonstrative pronouns by ilke 'same', and indefinite pronouns by elements like to 'too', !,2 'so'. Examples:

pino3e dep (FB200}

=your own death heora agene men (PC1070,9f.) =their own men

79

on pamilcan geare (PC1070,3) =in that same year pat 1lke mon (FB251) =that same man so manie £lures (FB442) •so many flowers to monie tale (ON257) =too many tales

The label •emphasizer' has been chosen for the peripheral position in the model of the pronominal syntagm on the basis of its mnemonic value. Its nuclear position is called 'pronoun', because it can be realized by a number of different pronouns. The general form of the model is then emphasizer->

pronoun.

This model accounts for the syntactic syntagms of the above examples. Analysis:

emphasizer: emphasizer: emphasizer:

of the pronominal

structure

03e --> pronoun: ~in agene --> pronoun: ilcan --> pronoun: ~am ilke -> pronoun: pat so--> pronoun: manie

emphasizer: emphasizer: emphasizer, to-->

heo59

pronoun: monie

If pronominal syntagms are not expansions of substantival to •emsyntagms, their potential expansions are not restricted phasizer• elements; hence the model requires an additional peripheral position. The following examples illustrate some of the realization possibilities. Examples: nucleus=

personal pronoun we •.. sylfe {PC1106,18) =we ourselves vvip hom pat ne mu e from pe schilde a.gainst

=against you

them that

(ON62)

not may from you protect those who cannot protect themselves

heo sat on pe sunne,

Wlp tieres

=completely covered with tears

28This form may either demonstrative pronoun

al blrunne

from

(KH653f.)

she sat in the sun

be analysed as an inflected form of the p~t or of the definite article. The nuclear position of the mode of the pronominal syntagm can also be real-ized by the definite article, e.g. bilke day (FB371) s'on the same day' •

80

nucleus=

demonstrative pronoun se of France (PC1120,2) that of France ;the king of France se ••• pet sent hi to heueriche (PM42) that ••• that sends it to heaven =the person who sends it to heaven nucleus~ indefinite pronoun eall pet he mihte (PC1070,15) all that he might =all he could to feawe of pam folce (BH28,21) •too few of that people feole to fordeme in schynynde wede (SC18) many to condemn in shining weeds =many who are going to be condemned in shining garments

In addition to expansions by means of 'emphasizer' elements, pronouns can be expanded by relative clauses and by participial constructions which con1nute with relative clauses. The syntactic structure of these expansions is identical with that of the corresponding expansions in the 'relative supplement• position of to use the the substantival syntagm and thus it 1s appropriate same label

for t:he peripheral

position

syntagm, too. 29 As 'emphasizer' expans.ions and 'relative supplement' expansions do not exclude each other, the model of the pronominal syntagm with personal pronouns in nuclear position can be represented in

t.he pronominal

as

emphasizer relative It allows

}

supplement

the following

29strictly

speaking,

> pronoun.

analysest

the

same label

should

only be used if

exactly the same realizations "'ere possible in the two syntagms. There is indeed reason to believe that the investigation of further texts wi 11 provide the missing examples, i.e. participial constructions and infinitive constructions without subject in the 'relative supplement' position of pronominal syntagms.

81

emphas.: sylf}-> rel .suppl.: emphas.

i

pron.:

we

O

o

rel.suppl.: emphas. = 0

1__, pron.,

rel. suppl.

emphas.:

: Wip tieres

]-

rel.suppl.:

o

rel.suppl.1

heo

pron.:

hi to heueriche

~et sent

horn

al birunn~

0

emphas.:

pron.:

~at ne mu3e from j)e sohild}-,

>

~et he mihte ]-

pron.

se

>

t

eall

Unlike in PDE, relative expansions are not restricted to pronominal nuclei which are not expansions, A case in point are possessive pronouns which realize the 'deicticum• position in substantival

syntagms.

Examples: pat spek in chirche pat nes no god To his mupe takep pe flod (VP109f.) that spoke in church that not-was good to his mouth goes the flood ~the flodd mounts to the mouths of those who spoke ill in church

and his soule worpe I-schend ~at pe to me

his lif

pis herende haue~ send (DS213f.) his life and his soul be put-to-shame errand =that

has sent per.son I s life

and soul

shame, who sent me this

The pronominal sions

in

DS(213f.)

the his

nuclei

are~

substantival lit and his

errand

ought

in both examples;

who to me this to be put to

they are expan-

syntagms his mupe (VP109f,) soule, respectively.

and

Analysis: emphas.:

rel.suppl.t

O

pat spek in chirche

pat nes god ]-

> pron.:

his

1n

B2

emphas.

=

o

> pron.:

pat pe to me p1s

rel.suppl.:

his .•• his

herende hauep send

A second, more elaborate model has to be developed to account for the syntactic structure of pronominal syntagms with a demonstrative or an indefinite pronoun in nuclear position and which are not expansions ln substantlval syntagms. These nuclei can be expanded not only by syntagms which realize the •relative supplement'

position

(e.g.

relative clauses, infinitive construcbut also by prepositional syntagms.-Thus

tions without subject), the model must also contain a 'prepositional and its generalized form is emphasizer relative supplement

application

to

> pronoun.

supplement

prepositional Its

}

the

relevant

supplement' position,

examples

yields

the

following

analyses: emphas.:

O

rel.suppl.: prep. suppl.: emphas.:

L>

o

of f'ranc:..r--

pron.,

.l ·

to

rel.suppl .. : o prep.suppl.: of pamfolc:..r--

>

emphas.:

L>

rel.suppl.s

0

to fordeme

se

pron.:

prep.suppl •• in schynynde wed:..r--

feawe

pron.,

feole

The early prose texts Old Kent1sh Sermons and The Peterborough Chronicle show traces of the OE construction with an indefinite

pronoun in nuclear

tive of a personal

position

which 1s expanded

or a deictic/demonstrative

Examples: here eurich

(KS34,1) =each of them heora ~le (PC1087,15) =each of them

by the geni-

pronoun.

83

sum para (PC1097,12f.) eone of them These syntagms

cannot

be analysed

above. Their expAnsions realize which might be called •partitive'. disappearing

in EME; it

with any of the models presented a separate peripheral position

The construction

was replaced

either

by the

was already coordination

of two pronouns (e.g. hi sume (PC1101,8) ;;'some of them'; pet ... eall (PC1070,19f.) ='all th1s or by pronominal syntagrns with an 1

)

expansion in 'prepositional supplement• position. It is, therefore, simpler and more appropriate to describe this archaic construction separately rather than to burden the model of the pronominal syntagm with an additional peripheral position. A further simplification of the description of the pronominal syntagm is to be expected from a closer investigation of the syntax of the personal and possessive pronouns. As soon as exam-

ples appear in which these pronouns are expanded by prepositional syntagms, er' ,

the model with the three

•relative

supplement'

, and

peripheral

positions

•prepositional

account for all occurrences of the construction, of its nuclear position. the realization

'emphasiz-

supplement•

irrespective

w11 l

of

IV. FUNCTIONAL SYNTAGMS

The syntactic function of a linguistic entity can be indicated by several means, such as wordorder or function.al markers. For markers which indicate the syntactic function of constituents of an utterance, Martinet coined the term monemes fonctionnels Mulder uses the more general label 1 functionalf for such syntactic entities. Functionals are the nuclei of ' functional syntagms • • The label 1 functional syntagm' is thus a cover-term for a whole class of syntagms with the common property that their syntactic 1

function

is indicated

the

functional nature of this

the potential

1.

by a special

1

plereme. The classification

syntagm.s of EME:presented

The prepositional

of

here

is based on the plereme which determines

plereme. It is also this realizations of the IC in the peripheral

The Prepositional

•

position.

Syntagm syntagm consists

of two ICs. One of them 1s a preposition, while the other may be realized by different constructions, the most frequent being that of e. substantlval syntagm. The two ICs are mutually occurrence-dependent and hence the syntactic relation between them is either that of subordination or of interordination. The following syntagrn is used here to demonstrate that it is the preposition which indicates the syntactic function of the prepositional syntagm.

of to day us telp i>et a bred.ale was i-maked ine po londe of ierusalem (KS29,Bf.)

Exampler l)et holi godspel

=the Holy Gospel of today tells

celebrated

us that a wedding was

in the land of Jerusalem

The first prepositional syntagm of the example is of to day. The adverb to day •today• can have different syntactic functions; very frequently it is used as an adverbial complement (of a clause).

85

Here the preposition g,! indicates that the prepositional syntagm of to da~ is an expansion of the substant1val nucleus godsEel. Similarly, the preposition 1ne indicates that the prepositional syntagm ine po londe of ierusalem is an adverbial complement of the clause a bredale was i-maked. Thus the preposition is the syntactically dominant part of the construct.ion, and the relation between its ICs is subordination, with the preposition as nucleus

and the other IC as actualiser. The general form of the model of the prepositional syntagm may be symbolized as preposition verb

Syntagm

negatio}modal tense

> copula.

3. The Passive Syntagm negation/ modal

tense}

4. The Substantival

> (passive

Syntagm

quantifier deicticum ordinal adjectival syntagm prepositional supplement relative supplement appositive supplement 5. The Adjectival

1ntensif1e}supplement

copula

Syntagm

>

adjective.

> substantive.

past

participle)

196

6. The Pronominal Syntagm emphasizer } relative supplement prepositional supplement 7. The Prepositional

> pronoun.

Syntagm

preposition