No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The status of the postposed ‘ and -adjective’ construction in Old English: attributive or predicative?
Abstract
Is historical linguistics different in principle from other linguistic research? This book addresses problems encountered in gathering and analysing data from early English, including the incomplete nature of the evidence and the dangers of misinterpretation or over-interpretation. Even so, gaps in the data can sometimes be filled. The volume brings together a team of leading English historical linguists who have encountered such issues first-hand, to discuss and suggest solutions to a range of problems in the phonology, syntax, dialectology and onomastics of older English. The topics extend widely over the history of English, chronologically and linguistically, and include Anglo-Saxon naming practices, the phonology of the alliterative line, computational measurement of dialect similarity, dialect levelling and enregisterment in late Modern English, stress-timing in English phonology and the syntax of Old and early Modern English. The book will be of particular interest to researchers and students in English historical linguistics.
... Less attention has been paid to word order within noun phrases, even though they, too, display a change from flexible to firm word order. There are exceptions, such as Demske (2001), Allen (2012), Breban (2012), Vartiainen (2012), Börjars et al. (2016), but these focus on the development of the determiner system rather than word order; Fischer (2000Fischer ( , 2001Fischer ( , 2006Fischer ( , 2012, Haumann (2003Haumann ( , 2010, Bech (2019) for Old English, Bech (2017) for Old Norwegian and Old English, and Tiemann (2024 [this volume]) for Old Norwegian, and for an overview of modifier order in early Germanic based on the literature, see Ratkus (2011: §4.4). ...
... Mitchell 1985: 78;Fischer et al. 2000: 46). Some relatively recent works on Old English provide interesting discussion of adjective-noun order and the factors that influenced it (Fischer 2000(Fischer , 2001(Fischer , 2006(Fischer , 2012Haumann 2003Haumann , 2010Pysz 2009;Grabski 2017Grabski , 2020. However, the accounts do not arrive at the same conclusions, and the fact that some data are excluded from the discussion and that the studies are written within different theoretical and terminological frameworks also make it difficult to compare and evaluate claims. ...
... However, the accounts do not arrive at the same conclusions, and the fact that some data are excluded from the discussion and that the studies are written within different theoretical and terminological frameworks also make it difficult to compare and evaluate claims. Fischer (2000Fischer ( , 2001Fischer ( , 2006Fischer ( , 2012 takes adjectival inflection as a point of departure and argues that there is an iconic relation between the inflectional property, the information status (given-new), and the position of the adjective. Strong adjectives are assumed to be generally associated with new information and therefore placed in postposition, and weak ones with old information and placed prenominally. ...
This chapter gives an overview of modifier position in noun phrases in the early Germanic languages Old English, Old High German, Old Icelandic, and Old Saxon. We first present data for the relative position of adjectives, cardinal numerals, pos-sessives, participles, and quantifiers in relation to the head noun. Then we compare aspects of the different languages and discuss factors that might account for the distribution, such as texts and genres, weight, and lexical factors. We show that the default position for modifiers in early Germanic languages is prenominal, and that instances of postnominal modification in most cases can be explained with reference to specific factors. Because the evidence for default prenominal modification is so clear in these languages, we question whether noun phrase modification was ever by default, or even mostly, postnominal in Proto-Germanic, despite the evidence from Runic data and early Gothic, which shows adjectives in postnominal position.
... Yet, there are studies which not only appear to be insensitive to similar subtleties but also choose not to make "any reference to the source texts, and … do not provide the equivalent Latin clause in examples used for analysis" while dealing with translated material with a clearly traceable source (Cichosz et al. 2016: 32). This is true e.g. for Fischer et al. (2000) in clause-level syntax, or Haumann (2010) and Fischer (2012) in noun phrase-level syntax. Meanwhile, Cichosz et al. (2016) provide compelling, corpus-supported evidence that some OE translations from Latin "demonstrate many features which are, or may be, the result of source text influence" (364). ...
... To further her point that postposition favors such 'verbal' adjectives, Fischer (2000Fischer ( , 2001 points to a high incidence of postposed participles, which, being deverbal elements, clearly refer to incidental rather than inherent properties of the nouns they modify. Actually, Fischer's (2012) article entitled "The status of the postposed 'and-adjective' construction in Old English: attributive or predicative?" concerns both parts of speech, with examples of adjectives and participles used interchangeably. ...
... Additionally, Fischer (2001Fischer ( , 2012 claims that postposition is linked with a further complementation of an adjective, which can govern a prepositional phrase, a dative NP, or an NP in genitive, as illustrated by (6), (7), and (8) In Fischer (2004: 21), the author specifically rejects the weight parameter as influencing the postposition of such adjectives and instead argues that the ability of the adjective to govern elements such as prepositional phrases is indicative of its "verb-like behavior" and as such provides sufficient explanation for the postnominal position of the adjective. ...
The article is a systematic, corpus-based account of Latin’s influence on the position of Old English (OE) adnominal adjectives. While multiple studies on phrase-level syntax suggest that source-text interference may have been partly responsible for placing the adjective after the head noun, this observation has so far received little quantitative underpinning. The present article offers a detailed comparison of OE target noun phrases containing postnominal adjectives with their Latin counterparts to determine the exact extent to which this arrangement may have been a syntactic calque from a foreign language. The study has found that while a fair number of OE postposed adjectives did copy their Latin originals, their placement could be accounted for through reference to tendencies characteristic of OE (i.e. the adjective displays different degrees of “verbalness” or is part of a heavy phrase). Therefore, it appears that translated texts do not have to be excluded or treated with particular suspicion in studies concerned with the position of adnominal adjectives.
... In sum, Haumann (2003Haumann ( , 2010 sees (1) and (3) as instances of true postposition, while in (2) the adjective is "falsely" postposed. Fischer (2000Fischer ( , 2001Fischer ( , 2012 considers (1), (2), and (3) as examples of "linear iconicity" in OE. In this model, postnominal adjectives are predicative and discourse-new, so they are not really integrated with the head noun and as such are more likely to follow rather than precede it. ...
... The status of postnominal adjectives as new informational units tallies well with their strong inflection, Fischer's (2000Fischer's ( , 2001Fischer's ( , 2012 primary criterion for interpreting OE adjectives. The author therefore rejects Haumann's (2003Haumann's ( , 2010 model, the rationale being that it is uneconomical as it would "have to admit two types of postposed strong adjectives, one predicative [. . ...
... With regard to terminology, the term "adjective" will henceforth be used with reference to both prototypical adjectives and participles, since the distinctions between the two are often blurred, and sometimes, participles are more "adjectival" than "prototypical" adjectives (see, e.g., Crystal 1980:9;Huddleston & Pullum 2002:540-541). For OE, adjectives and participles are treated on a par, e.g., by Fischer (2012), whose article entitled "The status of the postposed 'and-adjective' construction in Old English: Attributive or predicative?" concerns both parts of speech, with examples of adjectives and participles used interchangeably. ...
The present article looks at different patterns of adjectival postmodification in Old English. A detailed corpus analysis is performed, whose results are interpreted within the framework of Construction Grammar. This study contributes to previous research on the subject by using a large set of corpus data which pave the way for adopting a usage-based approach. The results indicate that the patterns analyzed fulfilled different functions, which in the framework adopted is grounds enough for assigning them to different conceptual categories, i.e., “constructions.” Further, I investigate the mutual relations between these constructions as well as the internal dynamics of their functions and development. The findings support the basic constructionist notion that language is most effectively described as a complex and dynamic network of interrelated constructions.
... With the notable exception of Old (and Middle) English (Mitchell 1985 for basic taxonomy ;Fischer 2000Fischer , 2001Fischer , 2006Fischer , 2012Fischer and van der Wurff 2006;Haumann 2003Haumann , 2010Pysz 2007Pysz , 2009, noun phrase structure in early Germanic languages is an under-researched area, especially in a cross-linguistic perspective. 2 Claims about adjective position in Old Norse, stemming from Nygaard (1906) and Ringdal (1918), have been repeated in the century since (e.g. ...
... (4) somebody nice (5) a mistake typical of absent-minded professors 3 One of Fischer's (2000Fischer's ( , 2001Fischer's ( , 2006Fischer's ( , 2012 main points is that postnominal adjectives are 'functionally predicative' even when they are not in a predicative construction with a copula. I will not consider that proposal here; in this study I have regarded as attributive all adjectives that are annotated as modifying a head noun. ...
The topic of this paper is Old English and Old Norwegian noun phrases containing two attributive adjectives. An overview of the frequency of various word order constellations will be given, before we zoom in on one of them, namely the construction Adjective – Adjective – Noun, i.e. noun phrases in which two prenominal adjectives occur next to each other without a coordinating conjunction. Old English and Old Norwegian will be compared with respect to which adjectives occur in this position. The paper also includes an intermezzo, during which we investigate what happens to adjective position when a text is translated from present-day English into Old English.
... What has been said may seem to be a proposal which is a bit simplified in comparison to what is postulated in Larson & Marušič (2004), Haumann (2010), or Fischer (2012. However, it must be kept in mind that DP-and NP-modifiers in Larson & Marušič (2004) and α and β-adjectives in Haumann (2010) are mainly concerned with the interpretational properties of adjectives such as intersectivity vs. non-intersectivity, genericness, new information vs. given information, stage-level reading vs. individual-level reading. ...
As regards Old English, the inflectional strength and weakness are characterised by a kind of inconsistency. In the case of Old English adjectives these two inflectional properties appear to be different from those associated with nouns and verbs. In the case of the latter the two properties seem to be lexically determined while in the case of adjectives they appear to be determined by syntactic conditions. The traditional accounts of the Old English grammar attribute two paradigms to one adjectival lexical item. The analysis presented in this article postulates that one can actually speak about one adjectival inflection and what is traditionally presented as strong and weak adjectival inflections is actually the result of two different syntactic derivations.
Building on a substantial earlier literature, the chapters in this volume further advance knowledge and understanding of properties of the noun phrase in English. The empirical material for the papers includes both historical and present-day data, with the two often shedding light on each other in a process of mutual illumination. The topics addressed are: the structure of nounless NPs like the poor and the obvious; the article/zero alternation in expressions like go to (the) church; developments in the early history of adjective stacking; the semantics of N + clause units in present-day English; the history of N + BE + clause constructions; and the decline of two anaphoric NPs in Early Modern English. The volume will appeal to scholars working in this area and will also help those interested in the general field of English grammar to keep abreast of recent methods and results in NP-related work.
The maxim Wyrd oft nere // unfægne eorl, / onne his ellen deah "Fate often spares an undoomed man when his courage avails" (Beowulf 572b-573) has been likened to "Fortune favors the brave," with little attention to the word unfægne, which is often translated "undoomed". This comparison between proverbs emphasizes personal agency and suggests a contrast between the proverb in 572b-573 and the maxim G3 a wyrd swa hio scel "Goes always fate as it must" (Beowulf 455b), which depicts an inexorable wyrd. This paper presents the history of this view and argues that linguistic analysis and further attention to Germanic cognates of (un)f3ge reveal a proverb that harmonizes with 455b. (Un)fæge and its cognates have meanings related to being brave or cowardly, blessed or accursed, and doomed or undoomed. A similar Old Norse proverb also speaks to the significance of the status of unfæge men. Furthermore, the pronominal position of unfægne is argued to represent a characterizing property of the man. The word unfægne is essential to the meaning of this proverb as it indicates not the simple absence of being doomed but the presence of a more complex quality. This interpretive point is significant in that it provides more information about the portrayal of wyrd in Beowulf by clarifying a well-known proverb in the text; it also has implications for future translations of these verses.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.