Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T03:01:58.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The demise of the Old English impersonal construction1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Olga C. M. Fischer  and
Frederike C. Van Der Leek
Olga C. M. Fischer
Affiliation:
English Department, University of Amsterdam
Frederike C. Van Der Leek
Affiliation:
English Department, University of Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Jespersen (1894) was the first to attempt to provide an account of the changes that the Old English (OE) impersonal construction was subject to over a period of time, finally ending in its disappearance from the language. The analysis that he proposed, and that he worked out in greater detail in Jespersen (1927), has essentially been taken over by other linguists writing on the subject since then, the only difference lying in the type of explanation they had to offer for the loss of the construction. It seems to have been generally taken for granted that Jespersen's choice of data on which to base the explanation for the disappearance of the construction is correct. As Tripp (1978: 177) puts it, ‘The discussion of the loss of impersonal constructions has reached a point where additional data seem unlikely to alter competing explanations of their disappearance.’ We have a radically different view of the matter in that we claim that all previous explanations of the loss of the impersonal construction (that we know of) are based on the same incorrect starting-point, i.e. a data base that is unduly limited and consequently an incorrect view of the changes involved in the loss of the construction, therefore inevitably leading to the wrong explanation. Rather than assuming, with Jespersen and others, that ‘impersonal’ verbs had one meaning in OE and another, the converse, meaning in New English (NE), we uphold that in OE both meanings existed side by side, systematically associable with different syntactic constructions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 337 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

REFERENCES

Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Lg 49, 765–791.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1979). On being without a subject. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den (1981). Government, syntaktische Struktur und Kasus. In Kohrt, M. & Lenerz, J. (eds.), Sprache: Formen und Strukturen. Akten des 15 Linguistischen Kolloquiums Münster 1980, Vol. 1. (Linguistische Arbeiten 98.) Tübingen: Niemeyer. 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosworth, J. & Toller, T. N. (1898). An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Canale, M. (1978). Word order change in OE: base reanalysis in generative grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P.W., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). On binding. LIn 11. 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1980). A first dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. London: Deutsch.Google Scholar
Dresher, E. & Hornstein, N. (1979). Trace theory and NP movement rules. LIn 10, 65–82.Google Scholar
Elmer, W. (1981). Diachronic grammar; the history of Old and Middle English subjectless constructions. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. C. M. & van der Leek, F. C. (1981). Optional vs radical re-analysis: mechanisms of syntactic change. Lingua 55. 301–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaaf, W. van der (1904). The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Garmonsway, G. N. (1939). Ælfric's colloquy. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. W. (ed.) (1848). The Anglo-Saxon version of the Life of St. Guthlac. London.Google Scholar
Hecht, H. (ed.) (1900). Bischofs Wærferth von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen. (Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa, 5.) Leipzig: Wigand.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1975). The syntax of the simple sentence in proto-Germanic. (Janua Linguarum, series practica 143.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Lg 56. 251–299.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Lg 51. 639–671.Google Scholar
Jember, G. K. et al. (1975). English-Old English, Old English–English dictionary. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1894). Progress in language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1927). A modern English grammar on historical principles, Vol. 3. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1981). On certain differences between French and English. LIn 12. 349–371.Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. (1981). Volitionality and subject in Bengali: a study of semantic parameters in grammatical processes. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1975). Dutch as an SOV language. LAn 1. 111–136.Google Scholar
Krapp, G. P. & Dobbie, E. V. K. (1936). Anglo-Saxon poetic records, Vol. 3. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. LIn 5. 117–136.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1979). The English passive: an argument for historical rule stability. LIn 10. 667–688.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. (1981). The history of Noun Phrase movement. In Baker, C. L. & McCarthy, J. J. (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 86–119.Google Scholar
McCawley, N. (1976). From OE/ME ‘impersonal’ to ‘personal’ constructions: what is a ‘subjectless’ S? In Steever, S. B. et al. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 192–204.Google Scholar
Meech, S. B. & Allen, H. E. (1970). The book of Margery Kempe, Vol. 1. (Early English Text Society, 212.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, R. (1880). The Blickling Homilies of the tenth century. (Early English Text Society, 58, 63, 73.) London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Onions, C. T. (ed.) (1966). The Oxford dictionary of English etymology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1981). Object cases in Old English: what do they encode? A contribution to a general theory of case and grammatical relations. (Unpublished ms.) Universität Hannover.Google Scholar
Plummer, C. (1892). Earle's two Saxon chronicles parallel, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pope, J. C. (1967). Homilies of Ælfric, Vol. 1. (Early English Text Society, 259.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.Google Scholar
Robinson, F. N. (1957). The complete works of Geoffrey Chaucer (2nd edn.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sedgefield, W. J. (1899). King Alfred's Old English version of Boethius' De Consolatione Philosophiae. Oxford: Clardendon Press.Google Scholar
Skeat, W. W. (ed.) (1871–1887). The holy gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1871). King Alfred's West-Saxon version of Gregory's Pastoral care. (Early English Text Society, 45, 50.) London: Kegan Paul and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timmer, B. J. (ed.) (1952). Judith. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Tripp, R. P. (1978). The psychology of impersonal constructions. Glossa 12. 177–189.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963–1973). An historical syntax of the English language. Vols. 1–3b. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wahlén, N. (1925). The Old English impersonalia, Part I. Göteborg.Google Scholar
Weijnen, A. A. (1971). Nederlandse Taalgeschiedenis. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Whitelock, D. (1967). Sweet's Anglo-Saxon reader. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar