Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang
Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang
Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
26 Peter Petré & Hubert Cuyckens<br />
in which becuman copied <strong>the</strong> copularizing functions of weorðan. A final section,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n, provides an account of <strong>the</strong> differences in distribution between weorðan and<br />
becuman. In addition, this section will also try to shed light on what caused <strong>the</strong><br />
replacement of weorðan in <strong>the</strong> first place. It will be suggested that a major explanatory<br />
factor in this respect is a change in <strong>the</strong> lexeme-independent network of copulaconstructions<br />
in which <strong>the</strong> lexeme weorðan was used.<br />
. Methodological considerations: how (un)representative are <strong>the</strong> data?<br />
In general, two approaches exist in research on Old and Middle English, each taking<br />
a different position on problems that may arise in comparing <strong>the</strong>se two dialects.<br />
The first approach is mainly philological and descriptive in nature. Its position with<br />
respect to any problems involved in comparing Old and Middle English is basically<br />
one of resignation. The second approach is that of <strong>the</strong>oretical linguistics, which<br />
is concerned with mechanisms of language change such as grammaticalization<br />
(i.e., <strong>the</strong> development of (more) grammatical functions, see Hopper & Traugott<br />
2003) or lexicalization (i.e., idiomatization). In this approach, problems of comparison<br />
are more often than not ignored. Ei<strong>the</strong>r one of <strong>the</strong>se positions is, in essence,<br />
undesirable. In this section, we will first discuss what underlies <strong>the</strong>se positions; we<br />
will <strong>the</strong>n explain <strong>the</strong> principles on which <strong>the</strong> data sample (or corpus) used in this<br />
paper was based to avoid ei<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong>se undesirable positions.<br />
First, in philological research on English, it is commonly accepted that a wide<br />
gap exists between Old and Middle English (see, for instance, Milroy 996: 67 &<br />
Toon 996: 434–435). Old English manuscripts are predominantly preserved in<br />
<strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn West Saxon (WS) dialect. The earliest Middle English texts (<strong>from</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> period 5 – 250), however, are almost exclusively written in <strong>the</strong> Midland<br />
dialect, which, if anything, is ra<strong>the</strong>r a continuation of <strong>the</strong> Anglian dialect of Old<br />
English. The usual conclusion drawn <strong>from</strong> this observation is one of resignation:<br />
OE and ME data should not be compared, because <strong>the</strong>y derive <strong>from</strong> two widely<br />
differing dialects.<br />
It cannot be denied that <strong>the</strong>se dialectical differences constitute a fundamental<br />
problem. And yet, in more <strong>the</strong>oretically oriented linguistic studies, this problem is<br />
often largely ignored, and comparisons between Old and Middle English are readily<br />
made – a point also discussed at length in Lass ( 994: –5). The main argument<br />
given in defence of this strategy is that <strong>the</strong> data are so scarce that <strong>the</strong> best one can<br />
do is to make use of all of <strong>the</strong>m. In particular, if <strong>the</strong> language items one is doing<br />
research on are fairly low or even average in frequency, ignoring is probably <strong>the</strong><br />
only option. However, for <strong>the</strong> purpose of this paper, i.e., explaining <strong>the</strong> loss of