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. 77–110

Leveraging grammaticalization

The origins of Old Frisian and Old English

For a long time, the striking similarities between OFris (Old Frisian) and Old English (OE) were attributed to an exclusive shared ancestor (Anglo-Frisian), but in the late 20th century that view was ousted in favor of a dialect continuum model. Recent developments in genetics, textual analysis, and archaeology, however, suggest that the earlier model is more accurate. This paper explores a series of diagnostics to distinguish between shared grammaticalizations caused by linguistic relatedness and those caused by geographical proximity. Those diagnostics are then applied to two developments exclusive to OFris and OE: the grammaticalization of aga(n) ‘have’ into auxiliary ‘have to’, and the development of a verb complement based on the OE/OFris present participle. In both cases, the diagnostics indicate that the changes occurred due to a shared ancestor, supporting the Anglo-Frisian hypothesis.
Keywords: Anglo-Frisian hypothesis, inheritance, contact, drift, grammaticalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammaticalization as a diagnostic tool
    • 2.1Comparing Old Frisian and Old English
    • 2.2Mechanisms of language change in contact and inheritance scenarios
    • 2.3Additional complications for related languages
    • 2.4Demystifying drift
    • 2.5Grammaticalization as a diagnostic tool
  • 3.Test case 1: aga(n)
    • 3.1 The grammaticalization of OE agan
    • 3.2Semantic layering: Intermediate stages and a semantic GSG
    • 3.3Another marker of intermediate stages: to
    • 3.4Infinitive inflections in aga’s complement
  • 4.Test case 2: The participle-based complement
    • 4.1The participle-as-verb-complement: A potential GSG
    • 4.2Erosion in Old Frisian infinitive and participle endings
    • 4.3The distribution of Old Frisian infinitives
      • 4.3.1Verbs of motion and rest
      • 4.3.2Accusativus cum Infinitivo (AcI) verbs: Perception and true causatives
      • 4.3.3 Ditransitive object control: biada ‘order’.
      • 4.3.4A control group for modals: skela ‘shall’
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.346.05col
References (79)
References
Abdelaoui, Abdel et al. 2013. Population Structure, Migration, and Diversifying Selection in the Netherlands. European Journal of Human Genetics 21, 1277–1285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra 2013. Areal Diffusion and Parallelism in Drift: Shared Grammaticalization Patterns. In Martine Robbeets, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), Shared Grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages (23–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra, & Dixon, Robert M. W. (Eds.). 2001. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anon. 2017. OED (Oxford English Dictionary Online). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved September 6, 2017 ([URL]).Google Scholar
Anthony, Laurence 2006. AntConc Concordance Software.Google Scholar
Århammar, Nils 1990. Friesisch und Sächsisch. Zur Problematik ihrer gegenseitigen Abgrenzung im Früh-und Hochmittelalter. In Aspects of Old Frisian Philology. German: Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik (1–25).Google Scholar
Bazelmans, Jos 2009. The Early-Medieval Use of Ethnic Names from Classical Antiquity: The Case of the Frisians. In Ton Derks, & Nico Roymans (Eds.), Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity (321–338). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Bazelmans, Jos, Meier, Dirk, Nieuwhof, Annet, Spek, Theo, & Vos, Peter 2012. Understanding the Cultural Historical Value of the Wadden Sea Region. The Co-Evolution of Environment and Society in the Wadden Sea Area in the Holocene up until Early Modern Times (11,700 BC-1800 AD): An Outline. Ocean & Coastal Management 68, 114–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bech, Kristin, & Walkden, George 2016. English Is (Still) a West Germanic Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39(1), 65–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boomsma, Dorret et al. 2014. The Genome of the Netherlands. The European Journal of Human Genetics 22, 221–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bos, Jurjen. M. 2001. Archaeological Evidence Pertaining to the Frisians in the Netherlands. In Horst Haider Munske (Ed.), Handbuch des Friesischen/Handbook of Frisian Studies (487–492). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire 2013. Relatedness as a Factor in Language Contact. Journal of Language Contact 6(2), 411–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bremmer, Rolf H. J., Jr. 1981. Frisians in Anglo-Saxon England: A Historical and Toponymical Investigation. Friske Nammen 3, 45–94.Google Scholar
1989. Late Medieval and Early Modern Opinions on the Affinity between English and Frisian: The Growth of a Commonplace. Folio Linguistica Historia 9, 167–191.Google Scholar
2001. The Study of Frisian to the End of the 19th Century. In Horst Haider Munske, & Nils Århammar (Eds.), Handbuch des Friesischen/Handbook of Frisian Studies (1–11). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. An Introduction to Old Frisian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan 2003. Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticalization: The Role of Frequency. In Joseph, B. D., & Janda, R. D. (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callaway, Morgan 1913. The Infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, & Poser, William 2008. Language Classification: History and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capelli, Christian et al. 2003. A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles. Current Biology 13(11), 979–984. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleran, Rebecca 2015. ‘To have’ and ‘to have to’: Addressing Old Frisian inheritance through auxiliation. In Eric Hoekstra, Janneke Spoelstra, & Hans Van de Velde (Eds.), Philologia Frisica Anno 2014 (41–63). Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar
2017. “Keeping It in the Family: Disentangling Contact and Inheritance in Closely Related Languages.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
Csató, Éva Ágnes 2013. Growing Apart in Shared Grammaticalization. In Martine Robbeets, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), Shared Grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages (251–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daan, Jo 1956. Onze Friese familie. West-Frieslands Oud en Nieuw 23, 106–110.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier 1998. The Modal Auxiliary Ought: From ‘possession’ to ‘obligation’. In Johan van der Auwera, Frank Durieux, & Ludo Lejeune (Eds.), English as a Human Language: to honour Louis Goossens (109–119).Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele 2002. A Model for Relevant Types of Contexts in Grammaticalization. Typological Studies in Language 49, 103–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, Menno 2011. Rondom de Mondingen van Rijn & Maas: Landschap en bewoning tussen de 3e en 9e eeuw in Zuid-Holland, in het bijzonder de Oude Rijnstreek. Leiden: Sidestone Press.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget 2013. Sources of Auxiliation in the Perfects of Europe. Studies in Language 37(3), 599–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph, & Faarlund, Jan 2014. English: The Language of the Vikings. Palacký University.Google Scholar
Epps, Patience, Huehnergard, John, & Pat-El, Na-ama 2013. Introduction: Contact among Genetically Related Languages. Journal of Language Contact 6(2), 209–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga 1997. The Grammaticalization of Infinitival to in English Compared with German and Dutch. In Raymond Hickey, & Stanislaw Puppel (Eds.), In Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday (265–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forster, Peter, Romano, Valentino, Calì, Francesco, Röhl, Arni, & Hurles, Matthew 2004. mtDNA Markers for Celtic and Germanic Language Areas in the British Isles. In Martin Jones (Ed.), Traces of Ancestry (99–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fryske Akademy 2009. Frisian Language Databases. Leeuwarden. Retrieved ([URL]).Google Scholar
de Haan, Germen 2010. Studies in West Frisian Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Härke, Heinrich 2011. Anglo-Saxon Immigration and Ethnogenesis. Medieval Archaeology 55, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C., & Campbell, Lyle 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Kuteva, Tania 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Nomachi, Motoki 2013. Contact-Induced Replication: Some Diagnostics. In Martine Robbeets, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), Shared Grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages (67–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric 1993. Over de implicaties van enkele morfo-syntactische eigenaardigheden in West-Friese dialecten. Taal en Tongval 45, 135–154.Google Scholar
1994. Positie- en Bewegingsaspect bij Selectie van de Infinitief op -E of -EN in het Westfries en het Fries. Taal en Tongval 46, 66–73.Google Scholar
2001. Frisian Relics in the Dutch Dialects. In Horst Haider Munske (Ed.), Handbook of Frisian Studies (138–142). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Jarich 1992. Fering Tu-Infinitives, North Sea Germanic Syntax and Universal Grammar. Friesische Studien I, 99–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, Dietrich, & Popkema, Anne Tjerk 2008. Altfriesisches Handwörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard 2002. Dutch Dialects and Stammbaum Theory. In Of Diuersitie & Chaunge of Langage: Essays Presented to Manfred Görlach on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (212–223). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Howe, Stephen 2013. North Sea Germanic Pronouns. The Bulleting of the Central Research Institute, Fukuoka University 12(4), 5–18.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian 2013. Demystifying Drift. In Martine Robbeets, & Hubert Cuyckens (Eds.), Shared Grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages (43–65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania 2001. Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William 2007. Transmission and Diffusion. Language 83(2), 344–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger 2000. Language Periodization and the Concept ‘Middle’. In Irma Taavitsainen, Terttu Nevalainen, Päivi Pahta, & Matti Rissanen (Eds.), Placing Middle English in Context, 7–41. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou 1998. The Rise of the to-Infinitive as Verb Complement. English Language and Linguistics 2, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Infinitival Complementation in Old and Middle English. The Hague: Theseus.Google Scholar
2000. Onginnan/Beginnan with Bare and to-Infinitive in Ælfric. In Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach, & Dieter Stein (Eds.), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English (251–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. The Rise of the TO-Infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Markey, Thomas L. 1981. Frisian. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka 2016. The Interaction of Phonology-Morphology-Syntax-Pragmatics in Final -n Loss. Presented at ICEHL XIX, Essen, August 2016.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce, & Robinson, Fred 2012. A Guide to Old English. 8th edition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Hans Frede 1981. Old English and the Continental Germanic Languages. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Nieuwhof, Annet 2009. Discontinuity in the Northern-Netherlands Coastal Area at the End of the Roman Period. In Titus Panhuysen (Ed.), Transformations in North-Western Europe (AD 300–1000): Proceedings of the 60th Sachsensymposion 19.-23. September 2009 Maastricht. Hanover: Niedersächsischen Landesmuseum Hannover.Google Scholar
2013. Anglo-Saxon Immigration or Continuity? Ezinge and the Coastal Area of the Northern Netherlands in the Migration Period. Journal of Archaeology in the Low Countries 5(1), 53–83.Google Scholar
Pat-El, Na-ama 2013. Contact or Inheritance? Criteria for Distinguishing Internal and External Change in Genetically Related Languages. Journal of Language Contact 6(2), 313–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya 2015. Is It English or Engelsk? Parts 1–3. Languages of the World. Retrieved September 24, 2015 ([URL]).Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, & Levey, Stephen 2010. Contact-Induced Grammatical Change: A Cautionary Tale. In Peter Auer, & Jürgen Erich Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Space: An International Handbook of Language Variation (391–419).Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, & Wrenn, Charles Leslie 1955. An Old English Grammar. Methuen.Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald, & Taylor, Ann. 2014. The Development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robbeets, Martine 2013. Genealogically Motivated Grammaticalization. Shared Grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages (147–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robbeets, Martine, & Cuyckens, Hubert 2013. Towards a Typology of Shared Grammaticalization. In Robbeets, Martine, & Cuyckens, Hubert (Eds.), Shared Grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages (1–20). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Schiffels, Stephan et al. 2016. Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon Genomes from East England Reveal British Migration History. Nature Communications 7:10408 DOI logo.Google Scholar
Stiles, Patrick V. 1995. Remarks on the ‘Anglo-Frisian’ Thesis. In Volkert F. Faltings, Alastair Walker, & Ommo Wilts (Eds.), Friesische Studien II (177–220). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Remarks on the ‘Anglo-Frisian’ Thesis (revised version, unpublished).
Thomason, Sarah 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
2012. English or Engelsk? Language Log. Retrieved September 24, 2015 ([URL]).Google Scholar
Versloot, Arjen 2008. Mechanisms of Language Change: Vowel Reduction in 15th Century West Frisian. PhD, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen.
Versloot, Arjen, & Adamczyk, Elzbieta 2014. Corpus Size and Composition: Evidence from the Inflectional Morphology of Nouns in Old English and Old Frisian. In Rolf H. J. Bremmer Jr., Stephen Laker, & Oebele Vries (Eds.),. Directions for Old Frisian Philology, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik (539–569).Google Scholar
Walkden, George 2013. The Correspondence Problem in Syntactic Reconstruction. Diachronica 30(1), 95–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weale, Michael E., Jager, Deborah A., Bradman, Neil, & Thomas, Mark G. 2002. Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19(7), 1008–1021. DOI logoGoogle Scholar