The history of the genitive case from the Old English period onwards

Koike, Takeshi

doi:10.1017/s1360674306001808

Cited by 27 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence for this increase in frequency, as discussed by Koike (2004Koike ( , 2006, comes from the data provided by Thomas (1931: 70). He suggests that the frequency of the prenominal [X Y] (52%) is almost the same as the postnominal genitive [Y X] (47.5%) in early OE prose; early OE poetry already favours prenominal possessives (77.3%) rather than postnominal ones (22.4%), with the remainder being instances of the ofperiphrasis; but prenominal possessives in prose continue to grow to about the twelfth century, when the rise of the of-periphrasis results in decrease of prenominal possessives in both poetry and prose (cf.…”

Section: Variability In Old Englishmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…English possessive constructions have been analysed in a monograph length study by Rosenbach (2002), and within a Cognitive Grammar framework in some detail, both synchronically (for example, by Taylor 1996) and diachronically (for example, by Koike 2004Koike , 2006. In this section, I discuss some of the ways in which possessive constructions have developed in the history of English.…”

Section: Some Data On the Development Of Possessive Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions

Trousdale

2008

Word Structure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is concerned with aspects of lexicalization in the history of English from the perspective of Construction Grammar (CxnG). I show how constructional approaches can account for both grammaticalization and lexicalization within a unified framework, basing my argument around the two kinds of input to lexicalization which Brinton & Traugott (2005 : 96) identify: syntactic constructions and word formation patterns. In lexicalization, linguistic forms that initially participate in an abstract schematic macro- or meso-construction, become idiosyncratic micro-constructions, whereas in grammaticalization an idiosyncratic micro-construction comes to participate in a more schematic meso- or macro-level construction.The main part of the paper is devoted to a discussion of the evolution of what Taylor (1996) has described as possessive compounds, such as driver's license, in the history of English. I specifically consider how the CxnG framework can explain the development of form-meaning mismatches, conventionalization, and the loss of internal constituency, in lexicalization. The data suggest that a constructional approach can account for the two stages of lexicalization (grammatical to lexical, less lexical to more lexical) in a way parallel to the two stages of grammaticalization (lexical to grammatical, less grammatical to more grammatical).

show abstract

Section: Variability In Old Englishmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Some Data On the Development Of Possessive Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions

Trousdale

2008

Word Structure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The premodifier genitive signifies the closest relation and minimal individuation; the determiner genitive signifies the most distant relation and maximal individuation. Compare Koike (2006) on limited involvement as the meaning of the genitive in English.…”

Section: The Nature Of the Genitive And Of Casementioning

confidence: 99%

“…If we follow Rosenbach (2002), Stefanowitsch (2003), Koike (2006), Hinrichs and Szmrecsanyi (2007) among others in regarding both forms as genitive, then the nominal premodifiers being considered must also be deemed to be genitives. What links the -s and of-forms in that view is their shared set of underlying relations, and that is shared equally by these nominal premodifiers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What controls the “genitive variation” in Present-Day English?

Feist

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper takes up the recent discussion of what controls speakers' use of the -5 and of-genitives, as in the university's budget and the budget of the university. Most of the paper deals directly with control ofthat "genitive variation". It first argues that there is a third variant, as in the university budget. It then discusses why all three just given, for example, are grammatical, but, with a litre of petrol, the alternatives {*apetrol's litre and '^a petrol litre) are not grammatical, arguing that the grammaticality is controlled by whether the word and phrase meanings are compatible with their syntax. It then argues that, where there are equally grammatical alternatives, the speakers" choice often depends on the same issues of semantic and syntactic compatibility. The last main section of the paper deals with the grammatical status ofthat third variant, arguing that the ¡ budget truly is genitive.

show abstract

“…Investigations into prenominal and postnominal genitives have shown that it is the latter-a category that essentially includes the partitive genitive illustrated in (15) and (16) below (Allen 1998;Koike 2006 (2) This change reflects the loss of postnominal genitives, while some prenominal ones continued into late ME, accompanied by a steep increase in the frequency of the of genitive (Thomas 1931). The partitive genitive is the last postnominal type to disappear from English, although its use does not extend beyond the thirteenth century (Allen 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Competence, Performance, and Extra Prepositions

Nykiel

2010

Journal of English Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers the forces behind the use of extra prepositions (by way of doubling or inserting a mismatched preposition) in relative and interrogative clause environments in Middle English. The author argues that in that period the explanation lies with both categorical and noncategorical (gradient) factors, with only the latter continuing beyond Middle English and into present-day English. Two noncategorical factors have affected English extra prepositions since the Middle English period: accessibility of wh-phrases and semantic connectedness between a verb and preposition. Semantic connectedness favors preposition stranding, while considerations of accessibility favor preposition pied-piping. The former is reflected in a bias toward adjacency of lexicalized units, the latter in a bias toward relative clauses, where the accessibility of a wh-phrase is by default low. Together, these findings provide support for lexicalist grammars that accommodate noncategorical constraints.Ever since its formulation in the mid-1950s, generative grammar along with its subsequent revisions has assumed a sharp divide between linguistic knowledge (competence or I-language), defined by Chomsky (1986, 2000) as a certain state of the brain common to all language users, and the use of that knowledge (performance or E-language). Chomsky's position is extremely strong: theories of competence are geared to provide categorical information about well-formedness quite independently of gradient information, which is argued to belong in performance. Although Chomsky initially admitted

show abstract

The history of the genitive case from the Old English period onwards

Cited by 27 publications

References 20 publications

A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions

A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions

What controls the “genitive variation” in Present-Day English?

Competence, Performance, and Extra Prepositions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About