Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T10:41:40.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The expression of impersonals in Middle English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2015

CAITLIN LIGHT  and
JOEL WALLENBERG
CAITLIN LIGHT
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, [email protected]
JOEL WALLENBERG
Affiliation:
School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics, Percy Building, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article contributes to continuing work on the information structural function of passivization, and how quantitative changes in the implementation of a syntactic strategy may be tied in with the acquisition or loss of comparable strategies. Seoane (2006) outlines a proposal that suggests that the passive construction is used more extensively in English than in the other Germanic languages in order to compensate for the lack of unmarked object topicalization found in languages with verb-seconding (V2). We reconsider this hypothesis from a quantitative perspective and find that, upon further examination, the claim does not hold.

We compare parallel New Testament translations along two dimensions: one set across three stages of historical English, and one set across three Germanic languages. We find that the reported change in the rate of passivization between stages of English, and between English and other Germanic languages, is in fact not directly related to the presence or absence of a V2 grammar, but rather due to the availability (or absence) of different strategies of forming impersonal clauses.

The current article focuses in more detail on one of the findings of an ongoing study into phenomena linked to the change in passivization in English. While the New Testament translations provide evidence that the overall rate of passivization remains stable across the history of English in one context, we find, in contrast, a significant difference in the rate of passivization between three translations of the Rule of St Benedict. These translations represent an Old English (OE) translation and two Middle English (ME) translations: one Northern, and one Southern. The data reveal a dialect distinction in ME: the Northern translation passivizes at a significantly lower rate.

Unlike the New Testament, which is primarily a narrative, the Rule of St Benedict text is written as a set of instructions, and passivization is primarily a strategy for expressing clauses in which no agent can be specified. We find that where the Southern translation of the Rule of St Benedict uses a passive, the Northern translation frequently expresses the same content via an active clause with impersonal man in the subject position. While clauses with impersonal man can be found in both the Northern ME and OE translations of this text, it is wholly absent from the Southern ME translation.

This reveals a dialect difference in the ME period: the Southern dialect appears to entirely lack a historically attested strategy for forming impersonal clauses. This, in turn, becomes one factor leading to a rise in the rate of passivization, as passive clauses are used to compensate for the missing strategy.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 19 , Special Issue 2: Sense of place in the history of English , July 2015 , pp. 227 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bech, Kristin & Eide, Kristine Gunn. 2011. The annotation of morphology, syntax and information structure in a multilayered diachronic corpus. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics 26, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Philippa & Bildhauer, Felix. 2011. Annotating information structure: The case of topic. In Dipper, Stefanie & Zinsmeister, Heike (eds.), Beyond semantics: Corpus based investigations of pragmatic and discourse phenomena, 45–56. Ruhr Universität Bochum, Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem & van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. The syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 1999. On the word order ‘XP-subject’ in the Germanic languages. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 3, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2000. Adjuncts and the syntax of subjects in Old and Middle English. In Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George & Warner, Anthony R. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, 109–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2002a. Features, categories and the syntax of A-Positions: Cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2002b. Inflectional morphology and the loss of V2 in English. In Lightfoot, David (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 88–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2005. Clause type asymmetries in Old English and the syntax of verb movement. In Batllori, Montse, Hernanz, Maria-Lluïsa, Picallo, Carme & Roca, Francesc (eds.), Grammaticalization and parametric change, 267–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade van, Ans. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallen, Jeffrey L. & Kirk, John M.. 2012. SPICE-Ireland: A user's guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar
Koch, Ernst A., ed. 1902. Three Middle-English versions of the Rule of St Benet and two contemporary rituals for the ordination of nuns. Number 120 in Original Series. Early English Text Society.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. & Taylor, Ann. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade, Ans & Vincent, Nigel (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Taylor, Ann. 2000. Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 2nd edn. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-3/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S., Taylor, Ann & Ringe, Donald. 1995. The Middle English verb-second constraint: A case study in language contact and language change. In Herring, Susan C., van Reenen, Pieter & Schøsler, Lene (eds.), Textual parameters in older languages, 353–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Santorini, Beatrice & Diertani, Ariel. 2004. Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCEME-RELEASE-2/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Light, Caitlin. 2011. Parsed corpus of Early New High German. http://enhgcorpus.wikispaces.com/Google Scholar
Light, Caitlin. 2012. The syntax and pragmatics of fronting in Germanic. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2002. The loss of the indefinite pronoun man: Syntactic change and information structure. In Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María José & Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology, 181–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2009. The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English: Information structure and syntax in interaction. English Language and Linguistics 13, 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James. 2001. Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4), 530–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1991. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Resnik, Philip, Olsen, Mari Broman & Diab, Mona. 1999. The Bible as a parallel corpus: Annotating the Book of 2000 Tongues. Computers and the Humanities 33, 129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröer, Arnold. 1885–88. Die angelsæchsischen Prosabearbeitungen der Benediktin erregel, 1964 reprint edn. Kassel: Bibliothek der Angelsæchsischen Prosa II.Google Scholar
Seoane, E. 2006. Information structure and word order change: The passive as an information-rearranging strategy in the history of English. In van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 360–91. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2010. Topicalization and stress clash avoidance in the history of English. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Warner, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan & Beths, Frank. 2003. The York–Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose. www-users.york.ac.uk/lang22/YCOE/YcoeHome.htmGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The informational component. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, Joel C., Ingason, Anton K., Sigurðsson, Einar F. & Rögnvaldsson, Eiríkur. 2011. Icelandic Parsed Historical Corpus (IcePaHC). Version 0.9. www.linguist.is/icelandic_treebankGoogle Scholar