Cover not available
Part of
Developments in English Historical Morpho-Syntax
Edited by Claudia Claridge and Birte Bös
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 346] 2019
► pp. 9–34

The dynamics of changes in the early English inflection

Evidence from the Old English nominal system

This study examines the mechanisms of the reorganisation of the Old English nominal morphology, which embraced a range of phonological and analogical developments conditioned by a variety of factors deriving from different domains. The immediate consequences of these changes are most prominent in the minor (unproductive) declensional classes, whose inflection tended to be remodelled on the patterns of the major (productive) paradigms. The focus of the study is primarily on three factors which had a major impact on the restructuring patterns of the Old English nominal morphology: frequency of occurrence, morpho-phonological salience of inflectional exponents and the formal inflectional overlap across paradigms. Interacting mostly in a synergetic way, they largely determined the shape of the nominal system as it is known now in modern English. The analysed material demonstrates as well that the dynamics of the changes in the nominal system worked towards retaining or enhancing the functionality of the system.
Keywords: Old English, nominal morphology, frequency of occurrence, morpho-phonological salience
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Restructuring of the Old English nominal inflection: Major tendencies
  • 3.Factors affecting the dynamics of changes in the nominal paradigms
    • 3.1Frequency of occurrence (use)
    • 3.2Morpho-phonological salience of inflectional exponents
    • 3.3Neutral forms and analogical pressure
    • 3.4Interaction between frequency and morpho-phonological salience
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.346.02ada
References (41)
References
Adamczyk, Elżbieta (2010). Morphological reanalysis and the Old English u-declension. Anglia. Zeitschrift für englische Philologie, 128(3), 365–390.Google Scholar
(2018). Reshaping of the Nominal Inflection in Early Northern West Germanic. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred (1990). Morphologie des Urgermanischen Nomens. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Bertacca, Antonio (2009). Natural Morphology and the Loss of Nominal Inflections in English. Pisa: Plus-Piza University Press.Google Scholar
Boutkan, Dirk (1995). The Germanic ‘Auslautgesetze’. Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. (2004). Inflection Classes and Economy. In Gereon Müller, Lutz Gunkel, & Gisela Zifonun, (Eds.), Explorations in Nominal Inflection, 41–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Karl (1965). Altenglische Grammatik, 3rd ed, Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5), 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative: consequences for the nature of constructions. In Joan Bybee, & Michael Noonan (Eds.), Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 1–17. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2003). Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization: The Role of Frequency. In Brian D. Joseph, & Richard Janda (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Frequency of Use and the Organisation of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann, & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Alistair (1977). Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (1994). Inflection Classes, Gender and the Principle of Contrast. Language 70, 737–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville, Hippisley, Andrew, Brown, Dunstan, & Marriott, Paul (2001). Frequency, Regularity and the Paradigm: A Perspective from Russian on a Complex Relation. In Joan Bybee, & Paul Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 201–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ivar (1938). Substantival Inflexion in Early Old English. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje, & Kürschner, Sebastian (2008). Complexity in Nominal Plural Allomorphy: A Contrastive Survey of ten Germanic Languages. In Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki, & Fred Karlsson (Eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, Studies in Language Companion Series 94, 243–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger (2004). The Acquisition of Complex Sentences, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, Jennifer, & DeKeyser, Robert (2001). Explaining the ‘Natural Order of L2 Morpheme Acquisition’ in English: A Meta-Analysis of Multiple Determinants. Language Learning 51, 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph (1966). Language Universals. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, & Sims, Andrea (2010). Understanding Morphology. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Healey, Antonette di Paolo, Holland, Joan, McDougall, David, McDougall, Ian, & Xiang, Xin (Eds.). (2009). The Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. (1997). Some Remarks on Case Marking in Old English. Transactions of the Philological Society 95. 95–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard M., & Fulk, R. D. (2011). A Grammar of Old English. Volume II: Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter (1995). Morphological Reanalysis and Typology: The Case of the German r-Plural and Why English did not Develop it. In Henning Andersen (Ed.), Historical Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory , 124, 227–238. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(1997). Morphological Classification in English Historical Linguistics: The Interplay of Diachrony, Synchrony and Morphological Theory. In Terttu Nevalainen, & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (Eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 52, 63–75. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Krygier, Marcin (1998). On a Synchronic Approach to Old English Morphology. Folia Linguistica Historica 19, 119–128.Google Scholar
(2002). A Re-Classification of Old English Nouns. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 38, 311–319.Google Scholar
(2004). Heargas þēoda: In Search of the *u. In Radosław Dylewski, & Piotr Cap (Eds.), History and Present-day Pragmatics of the English Language, 7–13. Łódź: Wyższa Szkoła Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, & Dresher, Bezalel Elan (1984). Diachronic and Synchronic Implications of Declension Shifts. The Linguistic Review 3, 141–163.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (1997). Why House is an Old English ‘Masculine a-Stem’? In Terttu Nevalainen, & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (Eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 52, 101–109. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (1988). A Usage-Based Model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50, 127–161. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laver, John (1994). Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter (1982). Local and General Markedness. Language 59, 832–849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wełna, Jerzy (1996). English Historical Morphology. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph (1910). Grammar of the Gothic Language. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. (1989). Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
(1990). Morphologisierung – Komplexität – Natürlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur Begriffsklärung. In Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger, & Thomas Stolz (Eds.), Spielarten der Natürlichkeit – Spielarten der Ökonomie. Beiträge zum 5. Essener Kolloquium über ‘Grammatikalisierung: Natürlichkeit und Systemökonomie’ vom 6.10.-8.10.1988 an der Universität Essen, 129–153. Bochum: N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar