In this paper, based on quantitative evidence collected on YCOE, I first distinguish various types of pre-nominal genitives in Old English. I then try to reduce a series of changes that affected the syntax of the adnominal genitive to a single primitive, focusing on the causal mechanisms of syntactic change. I examine the different ways in which one change, namely the loss of post-nominal inflected genitives in Old English, can be the direct cause of further changes, or crucially contribute to making them possible. In particular I discuss: (1) the loss of N-raising, which I argue did take place in Old English and was lost when the crucial triggering evidence (i.e. post-nominal external arguments of the noun) was lost; (2) the morphological re-analysis of the genitive inflectional marking as a phrasal affix, made possible by the loss of post-nominal genitives, which, not being subject to ‘splitting’ would otherwise have provided crucial evidence against re-analysis. (3) the replacement of inflected genitives by of-phrases, which became necessary when the use of a pre-nominal genitive instead of the then obsolescent post-nominal inflected one would have conveyed the wrong meaning.

Triggering syntactic change: Inertia and local causes in the history of English genitives

CRISMA, PAOLA
2012-01-01

Abstract

In this paper, based on quantitative evidence collected on YCOE, I first distinguish various types of pre-nominal genitives in Old English. I then try to reduce a series of changes that affected the syntax of the adnominal genitive to a single primitive, focusing on the causal mechanisms of syntactic change. I examine the different ways in which one change, namely the loss of post-nominal inflected genitives in Old English, can be the direct cause of further changes, or crucially contribute to making them possible. In particular I discuss: (1) the loss of N-raising, which I argue did take place in Old English and was lost when the crucial triggering evidence (i.e. post-nominal external arguments of the noun) was lost; (2) the morphological re-analysis of the genitive inflectional marking as a phrasal affix, made possible by the loss of post-nominal genitives, which, not being subject to ‘splitting’ would otherwise have provided crucial evidence against re-analysis. (3) the replacement of inflected genitives by of-phrases, which became necessary when the use of a pre-nominal genitive instead of the then obsolescent post-nominal inflected one would have conveyed the wrong meaning.
2012
9780199582624
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/2292672
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact