Search

This article deals with one of the aspects involved in the compilation of a treebank of Old English within the framework of Universal Dependencies. More specifically, this study addresses the question of how to account for the remarkable degree of Old English morphological relatedness in a type of treebank designed to stress syntactic similarities across languages. The solution proposed and assessed in this study is the addition of an extra field of annotation for morphological relatedness. The data of this analysis comprise 1106 derivatives attaching the prefix un-. Out of these, there are around 80 morphologically complex nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs whose derivation cannot be described gradually, 33 of which are unique formations or hapax legomena according to the attestations provided by the Dictionary of Old English Corpus. The main conclusion is that the specification of short-distance and long-distance morphological relatedness provides the Old English treebank with a paradigmatic dimension that can be particularly relevant for languages with relatively generalised and transparent derivational morphology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article deals with the Old English adjectival construction that consists of the copulative verb bēon ‘to be’ and the past participle. Grammaticalization is gauged as to the agreement between the subject noun phrase and the past participle and from the perspective of deflexion, which is considered the final stage of grammaticalization. The highest rates of agreement are found in Ælfrician texts and translations from Latin, while other texts like the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle not only evince remarkably lower figures of agreement, but also show a decrease over time. The conclusion is reached that, although the grammaticalization of the past participle in passive constructions is not complete on the basis of deflexion, the process is well underway in Old English. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we restrict, in favour of X constituents, the role played by VN in a functional syntax. More specifically, we suggest that the element central to the formulation of synchronic and diachronic expression rules is the focusbearing constituent, that is, X--not VN--in languages that show full or partial OV morphosyntax, We comment on the inadequacy of the V2 Rule and formulate a hypothetical description and explanation of Old English passive constructions: we shall speak of "unmarked topic" whenever this pragmatic function is assigned to a constituent that does not occupy clauseinitial position and of unmarked focus whenever this function is assigned to the constituent that lies in inter-verbal position, clause-initial, second and final position. This explanation is consistent with the pragmatic mode advanced by Bossuyt (1985: 15ff) and Tejada (1988: 83ff) and with the explanations for OE constituent order put forward by Dik (1980: 153) and Bossuyt (1985: 27), We find points of convergence with Bean (1983: 136) as well. We also put forward the hypothesis that a markedness hierarchy as regards pragmatic function assignment may be proposed, whose validity we try to demonstrate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to assess the semantic transparency of Old English nominal and adjectival affixation. Three principles of semantic transparency are defined, requiring that (i) the attachment of an affix significantly modifies the meaning of the base of derivation; (ii) an affix performs one and the same lexical function in all the derivatives to which it is attached; (iii) a lexical function is performed by one and the same affix in all the derivatives where it applies. The discussion shows that the relation affix-function is overall more transparent than function-affix. The conclusion is drawn that the formation of Old English nouns and adjectives by affixal means is relatively transparent. Considering that approximately one fourth of the total vocabulary of Old English and one half of the derived lexicon have been analyzed, this conclusion clearly points to the relative transparency of Old English word-formation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper offers a non-intuitive definition of the English subject by discussing Keenan's coding and control properties and by contending that leakage, blocking properties (co-referentiality, omission of the relative and question target) and categorization must also be taken into account in the definition of this grammatical function. The consideration of leakage and blocking properties allows for a cross-theoretical approach to this syntactic phenomenon that may modify Keenan's hierarchy of subject properties and the hierarchy of syntactic functions of Keenan and Comrie. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]