Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:52:36.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lone pronoun tags in Early Modern English: ProTag constructions in the dramas of Jonson, Marlowe and Shakespeare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2020

LOUISE MYCOCK Open the ORCID record for LOUISE MYCOCK [Opens in a new window]  and
JAMES MISSON Open the ORCID record for JAMES MISSON [Opens in a new window]
LOUISE MYCOCK
Affiliation:
Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, Somerville College, University of Oxford, Woodstock Road, OxfordOX2 6HD, UK, louise.mycock@ling-phil.ox.ac.uk
JAMES MISSON
Affiliation:
Faculty of English Language and Literature, St Anne's College, University of Oxford, 56 Woodstock Road, OxfordOX2 6HS, UK, james.misson@ell.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent research into right-dislocated pronouns has provided details of the form and functions of lone pronoun tag (ProTag) constructions in Present-day British English. In this article, we present the first systematic investigation of ProTag constructions in an earlier variety, Early Modern English. Using as our corpus the dramatic works of Jonson, Marlowe and Shakespeare – writers already known to make use of tag questions in their works – we identified and analysed ProTag constructions. Our findings reveal that ProTag constructions in Early Modern English differ from their Present-day British English equivalents with respect to possible functions: in the earlier variety ProTag constructions could have a ‘Question’ function, the same as tag questions. We also found the relative frequency of demonstrative ProTags compared to personal ProTags to be significantly different: personal ProTags are far more frequently attested than demonstrative ProTags in our corpus of Early Modern English drama texts; this is the reverse of what has been found for Present-day British English. We propose that a key factor in the observed change is extension of the types of referents that demonstrative ProTags can have. This study offers a new perspective on ProTag constructions, their classification and development.

Keywords

pronoun tagsEarly Modern Englishlanguage changeright dislocationdiscourse
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2021 , pp. 379 - 407
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Karin Axelsson, Ylva Berglund Prytz, Louise Esher, Sebastian Hoffmann, Aditi Lahiri, Vytautas Undraitis, the members of the ‘Syntax Beyond the Canon: Cutting-edge Studies of Non-Canonical Syntax in English’ research network funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – 419901034, two anonymous reviewers and the editor Laurel Brinton for their time and insights. For valuable discussions, we also thank participants at the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Linguistics of English (ISLE 5); a Séminaire CLLE session at the Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, France; and the Symposium in Honor of Professor Marcus Nordlund at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. This study was funded by a British Academy / Leverhulme Small Research Grant (SG 170013) awarded to the first author.

References

Abbott, Edwin Abott. 1884. A Shakespearian grammar. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Algeo, John. 1990. It's a myth, innit? Politeness and the English tag question. In Ricks, Christopher & Michaels, Leonard (eds.), The state of the language, 443–50. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Axelsson, Karin. 2011. Tag questions in fiction dialogue. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Barron, Anne, Pandarova, Irina & Muderack, Karoline. 2015. Tag questions across Irish English and British English: A corpus analysis of form and function. Multilingua 34, 495–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevington, David, Butler, Martin & Donaldson, Ian (eds.). 2014. The Cambridge edition of the works of Ben Jonson online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/benjonson/Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
BNC = British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk (accessed 9 April 2016).Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Mark Thornton (ed.). 1999. Christopher Marlowe: The complete plays. London: Everyman.Google Scholar
Corrigan, Karen P., Buchstaller, Isabelle, Mearns, Adam & Moisl, Hermann. 2012–. The Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English (DECTE). Newcastle University. http://research.ncl.ac.uk/decteGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 2008. Uniformity and diversity in the syntax of evaluative vocatives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11, 43–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1, 175–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English (GloWbE): 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries. www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2016–. Corpus of News on the Web (NOW): > 3 billion words from online newspaper websites in 20 countries. www.english-corpora.org/now/+3+billion+words+from+online+newspaper+websites+in+20+countries.+www.english-corpora.org/now>Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1996. The case of the unmarked pronoun. In Britton, Derek (ed.), English Historical Linguistics 1994: Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 287–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dix, Robin & Darby, Trudi Laura. 1993. The bibliographical significance of the turned letter. Studies in Bibliography 46, 263–70.Google Scholar
EEBO = Early English Books Online. https://eebo.chadwyck.com/homeGoogle Scholar
Einenkel, Eugen. 1916. Geschichte der englischen Sprache, vol. II: Historische Syntax. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foakes, R. A. (ed.). 1997. King Lear. Walton-on-Thames: Nelson.Google Scholar
Greetham, David C. 1994. Textual scholarship. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Tag questions in Early and Late Modern English: Historical description and theoretical implications. Anglistik 17, 35–55.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, men and politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jonson, Ben. 1972 [1640]. The English grammar (from the works) 1640. Menston: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Kimps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin & Cornillie, Bert. 2014. A speech function analysis of tag questions in British English spontaneous dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 66, 64–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Leah. 1996. Unediting the Renaissance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McLeod, Randall. 1981. Un ‘editing’ Shak-speare. SubStance 10/11, 26–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Emma & Snell, Julia. 2011. ‘Oh, they're top, them’: Right dislocated tags and interactional stance. In Gregersen, Frans, Parrott, Jeffrey K. & Quist, Pia (eds.), Language variation – European perspectives III, 97–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mycock, Louise. 2019. Right-dislocated pronouns in British English: The form and functions of ProTag constructions. English Language and Linguistics 23(2), 253–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2016. Three types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a synthesis. In Van Olmen, Daniel, Cuyckens, Hubert & Ghesquière, Lobke (eds.), Aspects of grammaticalization, 19–46. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2006. An introduction to Early Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 2003. Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1333–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, Astley C. 1953. Studies in the syntax of Ben Jonson's plays. Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. III: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schlauch, Margaret. 1959. The English language in modern times (since 1400). Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Shorrocks, Graham. 1999. A grammar of the dialect of the Bolton area, part II: Morphology and syntax. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Snell, Julia. 2008. Pronouns, dialect and discourse: A socio-pragmatic account of children's language in Teesside. PhD dissertation, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Taylor, Gary, Jowett, John, Bourus, Terri & Egan, Gabriel (eds.). 2016. The new Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel & Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Tag questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34, 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel & Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2009. Tag questions in English: The first century. Journal of English Linguistics 37, 130–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17, 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Th. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, part 1: Syntactic units with one verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wallis, John. 1653 [1972]. Grammar of the English language: With an introductory grammatico-physical treatise on speech (or on the formation of all speech sounds). A new edition with translation and commentary by J. A. Kemp. London: Longman.Google Scholar