Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:59:40.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pronominal anaphoric strategies in the West Saxon dialect of Old English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

MARCELLE COLE
MARCELLE COLE*
Affiliation:
Department of Languages, Literature and Communication, Utrecht University, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, The NetherlandsM.P.J.Cole@uu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Building on previous studies that have discussed pronominal referencing in Old English (Traugott 1992; van Gelderen 2013; van Kemenade & Los 2017), the present study analyses the pronominal anaphoric strategies of the West Saxon dialect of Old English based on a quantitative and qualitative study of personal and demonstrative pronoun usage across a selection of late (post c. AD 900) Old English prose text types. The historical data discussed in the present study provide important additional support for modern cognitive and psycholinguistic theory. In line with the cognitive/psycholinguistic literature on the distribution of pronouns in Modern German (Bosch & Umbach 2007), the information-structural properties of referents rather than the grammatical role of the pronoun's antecedent most accurately explain the personal pronoun vs demonstrative pronoun contrast in the West Saxon dialect of Old English. The findings also highlight how issues pertaining to style, such as the author–writer relationship, text type, subject matter and the conventionalism propagated by text tradition, influence anaphoric strategies in Old English.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 381 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Ambrose (ed. Migne, Jacques Paul). 1845. Sancti Ambrosii opera. Patrologia latina XVII, cols. 735–42. Paris: Migne.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Sanders, Ted, Schilperoord, Joost & Spooren, Wilbert (eds.), Text representations: Linguistic and psycholinguistics aspects, 29–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71, 63–101.Google Scholar
Bethurum, Dorothy. 1932. The form of Ælfric's ‘Lives of Saints’. Studies in Philology 29, 515–33.Google Scholar
Bethurum, Dorothy. 1957. The homilies of Wulfstan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1987. He himself: Anaphor, pronoun or. . .? Linguistic Inquiry 18, 345–8.Google Scholar
Bosch, Peter, Rozario, Tom & Zhao, Yufan. 2003. Demonstrative pronouns and personal pronouns. German der vs. er. In Proceedings of the EACL workshop on the computational treatment of anaphora in Budapest 2003.Google Scholar
Bosch, Peter & Umbach, Carla. 2007. Reference determination for demonstrative pronouns. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 48, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosch, Peter, Katz, Graham & Umbach, Carla. 2007. The non-subject bias of German demonstrative pronouns. In Schwarz-Friesel, Monika, Consten, Manfred & Knees, Mareile (eds.), Anaphors in text: Cognitive, formal and applied approaches to anaphoric reference, 145–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Ruth. 1999. The Middle English recipe as a text-type. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 100, 27–42.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Russell S. (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse: Outcome of a symposium, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Marcelle. 2017. A native origin for they, their, them: Tracing the linguistic path of Old English þā, þāra, þām from Old Northumbrian to northern Middle English. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2000. Pragmatic binding: Demonstratives as anaphors in Dutch. In Juge, Matthew L. & Moxley, Jeri L. (eds.), The twenty-third annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 50–61. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Contzen, Eva von. 2014. Saints’ lives as narrative art. In Fludernik, Monika & Jacob, Daniel (eds.), Linguistics and literary studies / Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft, 171–98. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crystal, David & Davy, Derek. 1969. Investigating English style. London and Harlow: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
DOEC : Healey, Antonette diPaolo et al. 2007. Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus. Toronto: University of Toronto. www.doe.utoronto.ca/pages/pub/web-corpus.html Google Scholar
Edmondson, Jerry A. & Plank, Frans. 1978. Great expectations: An intensive SELF-analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 373–413.Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne & Martine, James R.. 1997. Genres and registers of discourse. In Dijk, Teun van (ed.), Discourse as structure and process, 230–56. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin. 1986. The syntax of reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Fábrega Grau, Ángel. 1955. Pasionario hispánico, vol. II. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Instituto P. Enrique Flórez. Monumenta Hispaniae Sacra. Serie Litúrgica, vol. VI. Madrid-Barcelona.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Kemenade, Ans van, Koopman, Willem & der Wurff, Wim van. 2000. The syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2013. The diachrony of pronouns and demonstratives. In Lohndal, Terje (ed.), Search of universal grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque, 195–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch reference. In Haiman, John & Munro, Pamela (eds.), Typological studies in language, vol. 2: Switch reference and universal grammar, 150–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Godden, Malcom. 1979. Ælfric's Catholic homilies: The second series, text, EETS s.s. 5. London.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1992. Text-types and language history: The cookery recipe. In Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 736–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69, 274–307.Google Scholar
Heffernan, Thomas J. 1984. The Middle English sermon, 1150–1450. In Middle English prose, 177–207. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Kampen, Jacqueline van & Pinto, M. Manuela. 2008. Germanic and Romance topic-shifting. In Gavarro, Anna & Freitas, João (eds.), Language acquisition and language development, 325–31. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kameyama, Megumi. 1999. Stressed and unstressed pronouns: Complementary preferences. In Bosch, Peter & Sandt, Rob van der (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 306–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Los, Bettelou. 2017. The syntax and information structuring function of demonstrative pronouns and the consequences of their loss in the history of English. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul 2002. Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. In Kaufmann, Ingrid & Stiebels, Barbara (eds.), More than words, 179–226. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert 1979. Deixis in discourse: An exploratory quantitative study of the Modern Dutch demonstrative adjectives. In Givón, Talmy (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12, 355–75. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2004. Text, Textsorte, Sprachgeschichte: Englische Partizipial- und Gerundialkonstruktionen 1100 bis 1700. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2007. Text types and the methodology of diachronic speech act analysis. In Fitzmaurice, Susan M. & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Methods in historical pragmatics, 139–66. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Walker, Traci (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebermann, Felix. 1903–16. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen. Halle. [repr. Aalen 1960]Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokrowiecki, Tomasz. 2015. Acute accents as graphic markers of vowel quantity in two Late Old English manuscripts. English Language and Linguistics 19, 407–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mörnsjö, Maria. 2002. V1 declaratives in spoken Swedish. PhD thesis, Lund University.Google Scholar
Ogawa, Hiroshi. 1989. Old English modal verbs: A syntactical study (Anglistica, 26). Copenhagen: Rosenkilde & Bagger.Google Scholar
Randall Lipp, Frances. 1969. Ælfric's Old English prose style. Studies in Philology 66, 689–718.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.Google Scholar
Skeat, Walter W. 1881–1900. Ælfric's Lives of Saints, 4 vols., EETS. London. [repr. in 2 vols. 1966]Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2001. Middle English recipes: Genre characteristics, text type features and underlying traditions of writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2, 85–113.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma & Pahta, Päivi. 2000. Conventions of professional writing: The medical case report in historical perspective. Journal of English Linguistics 28, 60–76.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1987. The auxiliary do in eighteenth-century English: A sociohistorical linguistic approach. Leiden: Foris Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. I: The beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Romaine, Suzanne. 1985. Some questions for the definition of style in socio-historical linguistics. Folia Linguistica Historica 6, 7–39.Google Scholar
Vihla, Minna. 1999. Medical writing: Modality of focus. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Vriend, Hubert Jan de. 1984. The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de quadrupedibus, EETS 286. London.Google Scholar
Werlich, Egon. 1983. A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
Wright, Susan. 1989. Discourse, style and the rise of periphrastic do in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 10, 71–91.Google Scholar
Wright, Susan. 1991. On the stylistic basis of syntactic change. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Historical English syntax, 469–91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar