Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cleft and identificational constructions 219 In any event, the discussion of findings from 17th and 18th-century plays which we have presented in this section of our paper should have illustrated that – for one thing – the correlation between IdCCs and ClCs might indeed be translated into an historical sequence. Moreover, we believe we have found a means of attempting to explain the rise of object pronouns in predicate position by indicating that these are tied to referential conditions. 4. Conclusions Let us begin our brief concluding section with yet another quote from an 18thcentury grammarian, this time from John Burn who was Priestley’s contemporary. In his Practical Grammar he states: The substantive verb am or be admits a nominative before it and after it, False syntax: ‘It is me’, ‘It was them that bought the goods, and it was me that bought for them’. (Burn 1786: 85) If this reflects real usage of the predicative first person pronoun, then these constructions too were affected by a tendency that we have witnessed in the plays: there we do indeed find alternating use of subject and object pronoun in the identificational use, sometimes even with the same character and within a few lines. However, we have not found a single felicitous instance with me in a subject ClC. This does not, of course, mean that speakers did not produce such constructions. But here we enter uncertain territory. In terms of frequency we may, however, infer that self-identification – as well as pronominal identification of another person – was pragmatically a frequent matter. Then what of focussing by clefting? To begin with: was this a strategy in oral communication? Our data at least suggest this, although it would take a much more thorough quantitative analysis to get closer to an adequate answer. What is basically at stake is the question as to how ‘oral’ it-ClCs really were. All we know for sure is that they were established to some extent in LME and that today they are largely restricted to expository written prose (Biber et al. 1999: 961). What happened in the meantime is still open for further research. Until the results of this research we probably have to stick with Figaro in Holcroft’s wording: ’Tis he, ’tis she, ’tis me ’tis – I don’t know who . . . 11 11. We thank Derek Britton very much for checking our English. Moreover we thank the referees and editors of this volume for their valuable comments during the revision process of this paper.
220 Claudia Lange & Ursula Schaefer References Ball, Catherine N. 1991. The historical development of the it-cleft. University of Pennsylvania Dissertation in Linguistics, Ann Arbor. Ball, Catherine N. 1994. Relative pronouns in it-clefts: The last seven centuries. Language Variation and Change 6: 179–200. Beal, Joan C. 2004. English in Modern Times 1700–1945. London: Arnold. Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1992. The linguistic evolution of five written and speechbased English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries. Rissanen et al. 1992: 688–704. Biber, Douglas et al. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Bosch, Peter & Rob van der Sandt, eds. 1999. Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burn, John. 4 1786. A practical grammar of the English language: in which the several parts of speech are clearly and methodically explained, together with rules of composition. Glasgow. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale Group. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/ECCO Chadwyck-Healey English Drama Database: http://collections.chadwyck.co.uk/index.jsp Gundel, Jeanette K. 1977. Where do cleft sentences come from? Language 53, 3: 543–559. Hatcher, Anne Granville. 1948. From ce suis je to c’est moi (the ego as subject and as predicative in Old French). PMLA 63/4: 1053–1100. Herrmann, Tanja. 2005. Relative clauses in English dialects of the British Isles. A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects. Agreement, Gender, Relative Clauses ed. by Bernd Kortmann et al. 21–123. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, Hopper, Paul. 1998. Emergent Grammar. The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure ed. by Michael Tomasello, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Huddleston, Rodney D. & Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiss, Katalin É. 1999. The English Cleft-Construction as a focus phrase. Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax ed. by Lunella Mereu, 195–229. Amsterdam: Benjamins. König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39/3: 463–516. Lange, Claudia. 2007. Reflexivity and Intensification in English: A Study of Texts and Contexts. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Leonard, Sterling Andrus. 1929. The doctrine of correctness in English usage 1700–1800. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 1993. Early Modern British English. Early English in the Computer Age. Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus ed. by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö & Minna Palander-Collin, 53–73. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Oxford Text Archive [= OTA]: http://www.ota.ahds.ac.uk Peitsara, Kirsti. 1997. The development of reflexive strategies in English. Grammaticalization at Work. Studies of Long-term Developments in English ed. by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö & Kirsti Heikkonen, 277–370. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Page 2 and 3:
English historical linguistics 2006
Page 4 and 5:
English historical linguistics 2006
Page 6 and 7:
Table of contents Foreword vii Intr
Page 8 and 9:
Foreword The conference at which th
Page 10 and 11:
Introduction Maurizio Gotti, Marina
Page 12 and 13:
Introduction xi than one gender. Th
Page 14 and 15:
Introduction xiii of Modern English
Page 16:
part i Old and Middle English
Page 19 and 20:
Ans van Kemenade, Tanja Milicev & R
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
10 Ans van Kemenade, Tanja Milicev
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
1 Ans van Kemenade, Tanja Milicev &
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 38 and 39:
The Old English copula weorðan and
Page 40 and 41:
Old English weorðan and its replac
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
G NP.Subj WIERÐ PPLE.SubjComp …
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20
Page 52 and 53:
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Verb types and word order in Old an
Page 66 and 67:
Verb types and word order 51 also i
Page 68 and 69:
Verb types and word order 53 typica
Page 70 and 71:
Table 4. Verb types in early ME non
Page 72 and 73:
Verb types and word order 57 patter
Page 74 and 75:
Verb types and word order 59 great
Page 76 and 77:
Verb types and word order 61 comple
Page 78 and 79:
Verb types and word order 63 (12) H
Page 80 and 81:
Verb types and word order 65 non-co
Page 82:
Verb types and word order 67 Sweet,
Page 85 and 86:
70 Kristin Killie Opinions concerni
Page 87 and 88:
72 Kristin Killie Examples of the d
Page 89 and 90:
74 Kristin Killie locative meaning,
Page 91 and 92:
76 Kristin Killie ing of this perip
Page 93 and 94:
78 Kristin Killie ða wæs growende
Page 95 and 96:
80 Kristin Killie Table 2. Function
Page 97 and 98:
82 Kristin Killie (14) Ða dyde þe
Page 99 and 100:
84 Kristin Killie is, of course, no
Page 101 and 102:
86 Kristin Killie It is possible th
Page 103 and 104:
88 Kristin Killie Comrie, Bernard.
Page 105 and 106:
90 Letizia Vezzosi (Campbell 1959;
Page 107 and 108:
9 Letizia Vezzosi In a sense, all g
Page 109 and 110:
9 Letizia Vezzosi form to agree wit
Page 111 and 112:
9 Letizia Vezzosi b. [Genesis 2382-
Page 113 and 114:
9 Letizia Vezzosi of gender assignm
Page 115 and 116:
100 Letizia Vezzosi .1 Third type o
Page 117 and 118:
10 Letizia Vezzosi where its semant
Page 119 and 120:
10 Letizia Vezzosi a phenomenon of
Page 121 and 122:
10 Letizia Vezzosi North Germanic l
Page 123 and 124:
10 Letizia Vezzosi Lazzeroni, Roman
Page 125 and 126:
110 Tomohiro Yanagi The sentences i
Page 127 and 128:
112 Tomohiro Yanagi given in (8) an
Page 129 and 130:
114 Tomohiro Yanagi b. Ealle ge me
Page 131 and 132:
116 Tomohiro Yanagi (17) accusative
Page 133 and 134:
118 Tomohiro Yanagi 4. Syntactic po
Page 135 and 136:
120 Tomohiro Yanagi for by assuming
Page 137 and 138:
122 Tomohiro Yanagi general assumpt
Page 139 and 140:
124 Tomohiro Yanagi Koopman, Willem
Page 141 and 142:
126 Richard Ingham & Kleanthes K. G
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
142 Cristina Suárez-Gómez between
Page 159 and 160:
144 Cristina Suárez-Gómez The cor
Page 161 and 162:
146 Cristina Suárez-Gómez English
Page 163 and 164:
148 Cristina Suárez-Gómez (7) se
Page 165 and 166:
150 Cristina Suárez-Gómez For the
Page 167 and 168:
152 Cristina Suárez-Gómez either
Page 169 and 170:
154 Cristina Suárez-Gómez The res
Page 171 and 172:
156 Cristina Suárez-Gómez Older L
Page 173 and 174:
158 Bettelou Los e. He threw all th
Page 175 and 176:
160 Bettelou Los prepositions (by,
Page 177 and 178:
162 Bettelou Los The non-acceptabil
Page 179 and 180:
164 Bettelou Los (diary/scandal, ol
Page 181 and 182:
166 Bettelou Los . Grammaticalizati
Page 183 and 184: 168 Bettelou Los c. Bill pushed Har
Page 185 and 186: 170 Bettelou Los 4. Earlier English
Page 187 and 188: 172 Bettelou Los mainly with ‘lig
Page 189 and 190: 174 Bettelou Los verbs (e.g., group
Page 191 and 192: 176 Bettelou Los It seems, then, th
Page 193 and 194: 178 Bettelou Los Emonds, J. (1985).
Page 196: part ii Early and Late Modern Engli
Page 199 and 200: 184 Amanda Pounder of English and c
Page 201 and 202: 186 Amanda Pounder (7) shows the ze
Page 203 and 204: 188 Amanda Pounder It is likely tha
Page 205 and 206: 190 Amanda Pounder The type is atte
Page 207 and 208: 192 Amanda Pounder minority asymmet
Page 209 and 210: 194 Amanda Pounder adjective in the
Page 211 and 212: 196 Amanda Pounder Here, the prever
Page 213 and 214: 198 Amanda Pounder While it is true
Page 215 and 216: 200 Amanda Pounder Aulnoy, Marie. 1
Page 218 and 219: ’Tis he, ’tis she, ’tis me,
Page 220 and 221: or with a ‘specificational’ obj
Page 222 and 223: Cleft and identificational construc
Page 236: Cleft and identificational construc
Page 239 and 240: 224 Thomas Egan with to-infinitive
Page 241 and 242: 226 Thomas Egan ( ) However, no mon
Page 243 and 244: 228 Thomas Egan 100 80 60 40 20 0 h
Page 245 and 246: 2 0 Thomas Egan 16,00 14,00 12,00 1
Page 247 and 248: 2 2 Thomas Egan 1,20 1,00 0,80 0,60
Page 249 and 250: 2 4 Thomas Egan Deprived of their c
Page 251 and 252: 2 6 Thomas Egan the ‘would like t
Page 253 and 254: 2 8 Thomas Egan One may perhaps sti
Page 255 and 256: 240 Thomas Egan Stephens, James (b.
Page 257 and 258: 4 Svenja Kranich Fitzmaurice 2004a,
Page 259 and 260: 44 Svenja Kranich feature of the ma
Page 261 and 262: 4 Svenja Kranich It is not easy to
Page 263 and 264: 4 Svenja Kranich as stative). A muc
Page 265 and 266: 0 Svenja Kranich description which
Page 267 and 268: Svenja Kranich . Subjective and obj
Page 269 and 270: 4 Svenja Kranich a decrease or loss
Page 271 and 272: Svenja Kranich Rydén, Mats. 997. O
Page 273 and 274: 258 Index of subjects, terms & lang
Page 275 and 276: CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY
Page 277 and 278: 252 Kay, Christian J., Carole houGh
Page 279 and 280: 198 nieMeier, susanne and rené Dir
Page 281 and 282: 137 liPPi-Green, rosina l. and Jose
Page 283 and 284: 76 wiCKens, Mark a.: Grammatical Nu
Page 285:
13 Maher, J. Peter, allan r. BoMhar
show all

Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?