Women's Names in Old English by Elisabeth Okasha (review)

Parergon ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-333
Author(s):  
Stephanie Hollis
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
English I

Null Subjects in Old English

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elly van Gelderen
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
Null Subjects ◽  
Verb Movement ◽  
Null Subject ◽  
Null Arguments ◽  
Germanic Languages ◽  
English I

I review the proposal made by Sigurðsson (2011) that null arguments follow from third-factor principles, as in Chomsky 2005 . A number of issues remain unclear: for instance, the kind of topic that licenses null arguments in Modern Germanic, including Modern English. I argue that Old English is pro drop and add to the discussion Frascarelli (2007) started as to which topic licenses a null subject. I agree with Frascarelli and Hinterhölzl (2007) that the licensing topic in Modern Germanic and Old English is an aboutness-shift topic. I also argue that verb movement to C is necessary to license the empty argument in the modern Germanic languages (including Modern English), but not in Old English, since agreement is still responsible for licensing in that language, as in Italian.

Poetic Exuberance in the Old English Judith

2009 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howell Chickering
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
English I

Old English (I)

1998 ◽  
pp. 21-54
Author(s):  
Dennis Freeborn
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
English I

Directional Out Of in the History of English: Grammaticalization and Reanalysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-126
Author(s):  
Marion Elenbaas
Keyword(s):  
Middle English ◽  
Old English ◽  
Structural Reanalysis ◽  
The Status ◽  
History Of ◽  
Corpus Data ◽  
Particle Verb ◽  
Late Modern ◽  
English I

In Present-Day English, the particle out is obligatorily adjacent to the following of PP, as in He pulled the plugs out of his ears / *He pulled out the plugs of his ears, even though particles can normally precede or follow the object of the particle verb, as in Hepulled out the plugs / Hepulled the plugs out. Interestingly, in Old English and Middle English, the particle out could occur either adjacent or nonadjacent to the of PP. Based on corpus data covering the period from Old English to Late Modern English, I show that the change in the syntax of directional out of involves grammaticalization: The bleaching of the directional meaning of the preposition of led to a structural reanalysis by which the of PP became included in the particle's phrasal projection and could no longer be separated from the particle out. This in turn led to phono-logical reduction of the preposition of. The loss of the nonadjacent option is argued to be connected to the status of particles as optionally projecting elements.*

Bodies as Borders: Cannibalism and Conversion in the Old English Andreas

2009 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon N. Godlove
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
English I

scholarly journals Spolia-Inflected Poetics of the Old English Andreas

2013 ◽  
Vol 110 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-219
Author(s):  
Denis Ferhatović
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
English I

Old English i-umlaut (for the umpteenth time)

2005 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN ANDERSON
Keyword(s):  
Old English ◽  
System Of Systems ◽  
Present Formulation ◽  
English Vowels ◽  
Phonetic Features ◽  
The Many ◽  
English I

This article offers an account of i-umlaut in Old English based on lexical minimality: the elimination of redundancies from, in this case, the phonological subentries in the lexicon. And the notation is that of Anderson & Ewen (1987), which is based, crucially for the present formulation, on simplex features which may combine in varying proportions. These assumptions combine to favour system-dependent underspecification. In accord with lexical minimality, the approach taken here is also polysystemic: thus, for instance, Old English vowels, even Old English accented vowels, do not enter into only one system of contrasts. The phonology is a system of systems sharing some but not all contrasts. The article attempts to show that on this basis some of the many apparent anomalies that the evidence has been thought to suggest can be resolved in terms of a simple coherent formulation. Concerning the interpretation of this evidence, it is the intention of the article to minimize appeals to phonetic features and phonetic processes not warranted by textual and comparative testimony. It is suggested that lack of attention to polysystemicity and a pervasive indulgence on the part of historical phonologists in phonetic fantasies undermine the conclusions reached by generations of scholars concerning the development of phonological systems, both in general and in particular.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document