Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:30:20.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the syntactic differences between OE dialects: evidence from the Gospels1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

CRISTINA SUÁREZ-GÓMEZ
CRISTINA SUÁREZ-GÓMEZ*
Affiliation:
Departament de Filologia Espanyola, Moderna i Llatina, Edifici Ramon Llull, office 258, Campus UIB. Ctra. Valldemossa, km. 7,5, 07122 Palma de Mallorca. Illes Balears, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Old English has traditionally been considered a period of linguistic homogeneity, since most available recorded texts are generally written in the West Saxon dialect. There are, however, isolated texts which have been ascribed to other varieties, in particular Northumbrian and Mercian. In fact, recent research on syntactic dialectology in early English (Kroch & Taylor 1997; Ogura 1999; Hogg 2004, 2006a; Ingham 2006) shows that linguistic variation has been present in the English language from the earliest times. This study reassesses the existence of variation in the syntax of texts belonging to different dialectal varieties in Old English, in particular in relative constructions. Based on an analysis of relative clauses in three versions of the Gospels from late Old English, representing West Saxon, Northumbrian and Mercian dialects, we will observe differences in the texts, regarding both the paradigm of relativizers and the position adopted by the relative clause within the main clause. I relate these differences to the existence of linguistic differences in northern and southern dialects.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 57 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Allen, Cynthia. 1980. Topics in diachronic syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Carkeet, David. 1976. Old English correlatives: An exercise of internal syntactic reconstruction. Glossa 10 (1), 44–63.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier. 1989. Adjacent and distant antecedents and the compound relative seþe in Old English prose. Leuvense Bijdragen 78, 385–99.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fennel, Barbara A. 2001. A history of English. A sociolinguistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fernández Cuesta, Julia, Ledesma, Nieves Rodríguez & Silva, Inmaculada Senra. In press. Towards a history of Northern English: Early and late Northumbria. To appear in Studia Neophilologica.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morpho-syntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Kemenade, Ans van, Koopman, Willem & Wurff, Wim van der. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. & Van Valin, Robert D.. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1993. A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2003. Why are zero-marked phrases close to their heads? In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 175–204. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard (ed.). 1992. The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. I: The beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard. 2004. The spread of negative contraction in early English. In Curzan, Anne & Emmons, Kimberly (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language II: Unfolding conversations, 459–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard. 2006a. Old English dialectology. In Kemenade, Ans van & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 395–416. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard. 2006b. English in Britain. In Hogg, Richard & Denison, David (eds.), A history of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1997. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: Movement of phonological features in the syntax. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60, 81–124.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 2001. An introduction to sociolinguistics, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2006. On two negative concord dialects in early English. Language Variation and Change 18, 241–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1985. Relative clauses. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II: Complex constructions, 141–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Taylor, Ann. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In Kemenade, Ans van & Vincent, Nigel B. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kÿto, Merja & Rissanen, Matti. 1993. “By and by enters [this] my artificiall foole. . .who, when Jack beheld, sodainely he flew at him”: Searching for syntactic constructions in the Helsinki Corpus. In Rissanen, Matti, Kÿto, Merja & Palander-Collin, Minna (eds.), Exploration through the Helsinki Corpus, 253–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham & Blake, Barry J.. 1981. Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax. North-Holland Linguistic Series. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Matthiesen, Christian & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988. The structure of discourse and subordination. In Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 275–329. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1992. Middle English dialectology. In Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476, 156–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, Thomas E. 1992. Man's son/son of man: Translation, textual conditioning, and the history of the English genitive. In Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 359–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ogura, Michiko. 1999. On the use of negative na and ne in the Regius Psalter. Neophilologus 83 (1), 133–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neil, Wayne. 1976. Clause adjunction in Old English. General Linguistics 17, 199–211.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1995. Variation and change in Old English clause structure. Language Variation and Change 7, 229–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7, 149–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1984. Relative clauses in child language, pidgins and creoles. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4, 257–81.Google Scholar
Seppänen, Aimo. 1997. Relative that and prepositional complementation. English Language and Linguistics 1, 111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Aimo. 2004. The Old English relative þe. English Language and Linguistics 8, 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Aimo & Kjellmer, Göran. 1995. The dog that's leg was run over: On the genitive of the relative pronoun. English Studies 76, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, Barbara. 1970. A history of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2004. Relativisation in early English (with special reference to the distribution of relativisers and the position of relative clauses). PhD dissertation [CD-ROM]. University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2006a. Relativization in Early English (950–1050): The position of relative clauses. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2006b. Relative clauses in Early English: The parataxis hypothesis revisited. In Sintes, Alejandro Alcaraz, Palomo, Concepción Soto & Garrido, María de la Cinta Zunino (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th AEDEAN International Conference. Jaén: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Jaén. [CD-ROM]Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2008. Syntactic dialectal variation in Middle English: Relativizers and relative clauses. In Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina & Dury, Richard (eds.), English historical linguistics 2006, vol. I: Historical and syntax and morphology, 141–56. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann. 2008. Contact effects of translation: Distinguishing two kinds of influence in Old English. Language Variation and Change 20, 341–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga. 2008. Absolute constructions in functional sentence perspective: a study of Old English translations and their Latin originals. Paper presented at 15 ICEHL, Workshop on Information Structure and Syntactic Change, Munich 25–29 August 2008.Google Scholar
Toon, Thomas. 1992. Old English dialects. In Hogg (ed.), 409–51.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Hogg (ed.), 168–229.Google Scholar
Trips, Carola. 2003. Stylistic fronting in the Ormulum: Scandinavian syntactic phenomena in early Middle English texts. Nordlyd 31, 457–72.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9, 81–105.Google Scholar