Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:14:23.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ne + infinitive constructions in Old English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2012

LINDA VAN BERGEN
LINDA VAN BERGEN*
Affiliation:
Linguistics and English Language, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Dugald Stewart Building, 3 Charles Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AD, UKl.vanbergen@ed.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The occurrence of the Old English negative particle ne ‘not’ preceding a bare infinitive rather than a finite verb is a largely neglected or overlooked phenomenon. It is attested in constructions with uton ‘let's’ and in conjoined clauses with omission of the finite verb (Mitchell 1985). This article discusses evidence gathered mainly from the York–Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose, showing that it is a phenomenon that needs to be taken seriously in descriptions and analyses of Old English. It is argued that the factor shared by the two constructions is the lack of an available finite verb for ne to attach to. It is also found that the use of ne for the purpose of negative concord appears to be more variable with infinitives than it is with finite verbs. Whether attachment of ne to a non-finite verb in the absence of a finite one is restricted to bare infinitives is difficult to determine because of the limited evidence relating to other non-finite forms, but there are some indications that use of ne may have been possible with present participles. Finally, some implications that the ne + infinitive pattern has for the formal analysis of Old English are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 487 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

1

I would like to thank Rhona Alcorn, John Anderson, Fran Colman, Wim van der Wurff and two anonymous reviewers for feedback on a draft of this article. The beginnings of the research leading to this article date back to my time as a British Academy postdoctoral fellow; I gratefully acknowledge the British Academy for their financial support during that period.

References

Bazire, Joyce & Cross, James E. (eds.). 1982. Eleven Old English Rogationtide homilies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, Angus, Crandell Amos, Ashley, Butler, Sharon & DiPaolo Healey, Antonette (eds). 1981. The Dictionary of Old English Corpus in electronic form. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project.Google Scholar
Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Clemoes, Peter. 1959. The chronology of Ælfric's works. In Clemoes, Peter (ed.) The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in some aspects of their history and culture presented to Bruce Dickins, 212–47. London: Bowes & Bowes.Google Scholar
Clemoes, Peter (ed.). 1997. Ælfric's Catholic homilies: The first series (EETS SS 17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colgrave, Bertram & Mynors, Roger A.B. (eds.). 1969. Bede's ecclesiastical history. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cubbin, Geoffrey P. (ed.). 1996. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A collaborative edition, vol. 6: MS D. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar
D'Aronco, Maria Amalia. 1983. Il IV capitolo della Regula Sancti Benedicti del ms. Londra, B.M., Cotton Tiberius A. iii. In Lendinara, Patrizia & Melazzo, Lucio (eds.), Feor ond neah: scritti di filologia germanica in memoria di Augusto Scaffidi Abbate, 105–28. Palermo: University of Palermo.Google Scholar
De Vogüé, Adalbert (ed.), with French translation by Paul Antin. 1978–80. Dialogues, 3 vols. (Sources chrétiennes 251, 260, 265). Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
Einenkel, Eugen. 1912. Die englische Verbalnegation: ihre Entwickelung, ihre Gesetze und ihre zeitlichörtliche Verwendung. Anglia 35, 187–248.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem & van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Project (ed.). Fontes Anglo-Saxonici: World Wide Web register. http://fontes.english.ox.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan. 1997. The change in negation in Middle English: A NEGP licensing account. Lingua 101, 21–64.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2004. Economy, innovation and prescriptivism: From spec to head and head to head. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7, 59–98.Google Scholar
Godden, Malcolm (ed.). 1979. Ælfric's Catholic homilies: The second series (EETS SS 5). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Godden, Malcolm. 2000. Ælfric's Catholic homilies: Introduction, commentary and glossary (EETS SS 18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanslik, Rudolf (ed.). 1960. Benedicti regula (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 75). Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
Healey, Antonette DiPaolo & Venezky, Richard L.. 1980. A microfiche concordance to Old English: The list of texts and index of editions. [Reprint with corrections 1985.] Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2006. On two negative concord dialects in early English. Language Variation and Change 18, 241–66.Google Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2007. NegP and negated constituent movement in the history of English. Transactions of the Philological Society 105, 365–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, Susan (ed.). 2004. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A collaborative edition, vol. 7: MS E. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Jäger, Agnes. 2008. History of German negation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 1999. Sentential negation and clause structure in Old English. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Tottie, Gunnel & van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Negation in the history of English, 147–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 2000. Jespersen's cycle revisited: Formal properties of grammaticalization. In Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George & Warner, Anthony (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, 51–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ker, Neil R. 1957. Catalogue of manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Willem. 2005. Transitional syntax: Postverbal pronouns and particles in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 9, 47–62.Google Scholar
Liuzza, Roy M. (ed.). 1994, 2000. The Old English version of the gospels, 2 vols. (EETS OS 304, 314). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migne, Jacques-Paul (ed.). 1844–55, 1862–5. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina. Paris. Electronic version: Patrologia Latina Database. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey. http://pld.chadwyck.co.ukGoogle Scholar
O'Brien O'Keefe, Katherine (ed.). 2001. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle: A collaborative edition, vol. 5: Ms. C. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Ogura, Michiko. 2000. ‘Gewat + infinitive’ and ‘uton + infinitive’. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 101, 69–78.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1991. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Piper, Paul (ed.). 1883. Die Schriften Notkers und seiner Schule. Zweiter Band. Psalmen und Katechetische Denkmäler nach der St. Galler Handschriftengruppe. Freiburg and Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Accessed online: www.scribd.com/doc/21238252/Die-Schriften-Notkers-und-seiner-Schule-Band-2Google Scholar
Pope, John C. (ed.). 1967. Homilies of Ælfric: A supplementary collection, vol. I (EETS OS 259). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schröer, Arnold (ed.). 1888. Die Winteney-Version der Regula s. Benedicti. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Scragg, Donald G. 1973. The compilation of the Vercelli book. Anglo-Saxon England 2, 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scragg, Donald G. (ed.). 1992. The Vercelli homilies and related texts (EETS OS 300). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Warner, Anthony R., Pintzuk, Susan & Beths, Frank (eds.). 2003. The York–Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose. York: Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1966. An historical syntax of the English language, part II: Syntactical units with one verb (continued). Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wallage, Phillip. 2005. Negation in Early English: Parametric variation and grammatical competition. PhD dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Robert (ed.). 1975. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, 2nd edn. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt.Google Scholar
Wenisch, Franz. 1979. Spezifisch anglisches Wortgut in den nordhumbrischen Interlinearglossierungen des Lukasevangeliums. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61, 283–305.Google Scholar