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. 129–148

A corpus-based study on the development of dare in Middle English and Early Modern English

This study argues that the changes undergone by dare in late Middle English cannot be explained solely in terms of the phonological similarity between dare and tharf, but also by the relationship between tharf and the verb need, plus the influence that the latter exerted on dare. The aim of this study is to analyse the semantic and structural changes that the verbs dare, tharf and need undergo in the period between Middle English and Early Modern English. The data are drawn from The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English and The Penn Corpus of Early English Correspondence. The analysis confirms that the verbs dare and tharf were confused in Middle English in non-assertive and 'fear' contexts. With the obsolescence of tharf, dare begins to occur more frequently in assertive contexts, and also starts to exhibit lexical features due to the influence exerted by need.
Keywords: pre-modal verbs, regularisation, assertivity, blend construction, impersonal verbs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The ancestors of the modal verbs and the status of dare, tharf and need in OE
    • 2.1Morphological features
    • 2.2Syntactic features
    • 2.3Semantics
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Blurred categorisation
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Primary sources
  • References
Published online: 27 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.346.07riv
References (26)
Primary sources
Kroch, Anthony & Taylor, Ann (2000).The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, second edition, release 4. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Santorini, Beatrice & Delfs, Lauren (2004). The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, first edition, release 3. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
MED - Kurath, Hans, Kuhn, Sherman McAllister, & Lewis, Robert E. (Eds.). (1952–2001). Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
OED= Oxford English Dictionary, online edn. (2016). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from [URL]
Taylor, Ann, Nurmi, Arja, Warner, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan, & Nevalainen, Terttu (2006). The York-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC). Department of Linguistics, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, first edition. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
References
Allen, Cynthia L. (1995). Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. (1986). A Note on Old English Impersonals. Journal of Linguistics 22, 167–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beths, Frank (1999). The History of Dare and the Status of Unidirectionality. Linguistics 37, 1069–1110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, & Vincent, Nigel (2011). Grammaticalization and Directionality. In Heiko Narrog, & Bernd Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (163–176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Alistair (1959). Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Denison, David (1993). English Historical Syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. (1994). Need and Dare: The Black Sheep of the Modal Family. Lingua 94, 213–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2004). On Directionality in Language Change with Particular Reference to Grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde, & Harry Perridon (Eds.), Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization (17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobsson, Bengt (1974). The Auxiliary Need. English Studies 55, 56–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred (2000). Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loureiro-Porto, Lucía (2009). The Semantic Predecessors of Need in the History of English (c750–1710). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce (1985). Old English Syntax (2 vols.). Oxford: Claredon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molencki, Rafał (2002). The Status of Dearr and þearf in Old English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 38, 363–379.Google Scholar
(2005). The Confusion between Tharf and Dare in Middle English. In Nikolas Ritt, & Herbert Schendl (Eds.), Rethinking Middle English: Linguistic and Literary Approaches (147–160). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia (2010). To Dare To or Not To: Is Auxiliarization Reversible? In An van Liden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete, & Kristin Davidse (Eds.), Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research (289–325). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taeymans, Martine (2006). An Investigation into the Emergence and Development of the Verb Need from Old to Present-Day English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Antwerpen.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1992). Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg (Ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. I: The Beginnings to 1066 (168–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Legitimate Counterexamples to Unidirectionality. Paper presented at the University of Freiburg, 17 October 2001. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Visser, F. Thomas (1963-1973). An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Vol. I-III. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. (1993). English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar