Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T14:37:18.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Old English to-dative construction1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2014

LUDOVIC DE CUYPERE
LUDOVIC DE CUYPERE*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, BelgiumLudovic.DeCuypere@UGent.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Present-day English (PDE), the to-dative construction refers to clauses like John sold/offered/mentioned/gave the books to Mary, in which a ditransitive verb takes a Recipient that is expressed as a to-Prepositional Phrase (to-PP). This study examines the to-dative construction in Old English (OE). I show, first of all, that this construction was not rare in OE, in contrast to what has been suggested in the literature. Second, I report on two corpus studies in which I examined the ordering behaviour of the NP and the to-PP. The results of the first study suggest that the same ordering tendencies already existed in OE as in PDE: both the NP-to-PP and the to-PP-NP orders were grammatical, but the NP-to-PP was the most frequently used one. However, in OE, the to-PP-NP was more common than in PDE, where its use is heavily restricted. My second corpus study is informed by the multifactorial approach to the English dative alternation and uses a mixed-effects logistic regression analysis to evaluate the effects of various linguistic (verbal semantics, pronominality, animacy, definiteness, number, person and length) and extra-linguistic variables (translation status, time of completion/manuscript) on the ordering of NP and to-PP. The main finding is that, generally speaking, the same factors that motivate the dative alternation in PDE were involved in OE as well. No evidence was found for the influence of verbal semantics nor of the extra-linguistic variables. Finally, I argue against the view that to was semantically reanalysed from a Goal to a Recipient marker from OE to ME. Building on evidence that the Recipient use of to was already embryonically present in OE, I make the case that this semantic change was far more gradual than traditionally assumed.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 1 - 26
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

1

I wish to acknowledge helpful comments and suggestions by Cynthia Allen and Harold Koch. I am grateful to Daan Van den Nest for assisting me with the retrieval of the corpus data. I also thank Joan Bresnan for providing me with an R script to perform the cross-validation test. Finally, I am grateful to the editor and the referees for several comments and suggestions that helped to improve the article.

References

Albers, John. 1907. Der syntaktische Gebrauch der Präposition to in der altenglishen Poesie. PhD dissertation. Kiel: Fienke.Google Scholar
Alcorn, Rhona. 2011. Pronouns, prepositions and probabilities: A multivariate study of Old English word order. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 2006. Case syncretism and word order change. In Kemenade, Ans Van & Bettelou, Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 201–23. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2011. LanguageR: Data sets and functions with analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. R package version 1.1. <http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=languageR>..>Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin & Bolker, Ben. 2011. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 Classes. R package version 0.999375-41. <http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4>..>Google Scholar
Belden, Henry M. 1897. The prepositions in, on, to, for, fore, and æt in Anglo-Saxon prose: A study of case values in Old English. PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English, 2nd edn.Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bosworth, Joseph & Toller, T. Northcote. 1955. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary: Based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, Sam & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 77–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W., Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Bourne, Gerlof, Kraemer, Irene & Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86, 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Hay, Jennifer. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118, 245–59.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. & Nikitina, Tatiana. 2009. The gradience of the dative alternation. In Uyechi, Linda & Lian, Hee Wee (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, 61–184. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cassidy, Frederic G. 1938. The background in Old English of the modern English substitutes for the dative-object in the group verb + dative-object +accusative-object. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert. 1999. Grammaticalization in the English prepositions ‘to’ and ‘for’. In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (ed.), Cognitive perspectives on language, 151–61. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert & Verspoor, Marjolijn. 1998. On the road to to. In Van der Auwera, Johan, Durieux, Frank & Lejeune, Ludo (eds.), English as a human language: To honour Louis Goossens, 57–72. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2010. The Old English double object alternation: A discourse-based account. Sprachwissenschaft 35, 337–68.Google Scholar
de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Grimm, Scott, Arnon, Inbal, Kirby, Susannah & Bresnan, Joan. 2012. A statistical model of the grammatical choices in child production of dative sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 27 (1), 25–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2003. Possession and the double object construction. In Pica, Pierre & Rooryck, Johan (eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harrell, Frank E. Jr., 2001. Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approach, 211–42. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, Tyler, Bresnan, Joan & Van Herk, Gerard. 2011. The dative alternation in African American English: Researching syntactic variation and change across sociolingistic data sets. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7, 229–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Willem. 1990. Word order in Old English. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Manner in dative alternation. In Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D. & Norquest, Peter (eds.), Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (18), 260–71. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Taylor, Ann 2000. Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, second edition. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-3/index.html. DOA: 9 April 2013.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1996. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki corpus of English texts, coding conventions and lists of source texts. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, image, and symbol the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and cases: The expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In Lightfoot, David W. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, vol.1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: a cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Polo, Chiara. 2002. Double objects and morphological triggers for syntactic case. In Lightfoot, David W. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 124–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Randall, Beth. 2003. CorpusSearch 2. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of linguistics 44, 129–67.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Warner, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan & Beths, Frank. 2003. The York–Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose. Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, UK. Available from the Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar
Theijssen, Daphne. 2012. Making choices. Modelling the English dative alternation. PhD dissertation, Radbout Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Theijssen, Daphne, Bresnan, Joan, Ford, Marilyn & Boves, Lou. Manuscript. In a land far far away. . . A probabilistic account of the dative alternation in British, American and Australian English. Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra 1995. The iconicity of ‘dative shift’ in English: Considerations from information flow in discourse. In Landsberg, Marge E. (ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes: The human dimension, 155–75. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea & Evans, Vyvyan. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Gucht, Fieke, Willems, Klaas & De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2007. The iconicity of embodied meaning: Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences 29, 733–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30 (3), 382–419.Google Scholar