Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2015: Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27-31 July 2015
Edited by Michela Cennamo and Claudia Fabrizio
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 348] 2019
► pp. 217–242

Chapter 11
The Old English verbal prefixes for- and ge-

Their effects on the transitivity of morphological causative pairs

This article investigates the transitivising effects of the verbal prefixes for- and ge- on a group of derived causative verbs and their corresponding bases (myltan ‘to melt’ (tr.) and meltan ‘to melt’ (intr.)) in Old English, showing a labile valency. It is argued that clauses containing verbs with these prefixes show a higher morphosyntactic transitivity than their unprefixed counterparts, reflecting the telicity of the predicate and/or the affectedness of the object. I show that the two prefixes differ in their effects on transitivity: while for- verbs correlate with telicity and high degree of affectedness of O, ge- verbs are closer to unprefixed verbs as far as their transitivity status is concerned.
Keywords: morphological causative, transitivity, verbal prefixes, valency, labile, Old English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Valency
    • 2.2Causatives as a valency-changing operation
    • 2.3Historical overview of Old English morphological causatives
    • 2.4Cardinal transitivity
    • 2.5Lexicalization
    • 2.6Old English prefixes
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results of the analysis
    • 4.1For-verbs
      • 4.1.1Byrnan-bǣrnan and meltan-myltan
      • 4.1.2Būgan-bīgan and hweorfan-hwyrfan
    • 4.2Ge-
      • 4.2.1Atelicity
      • 4.2.2Adverbial evidence
      • 4.2.3Ge-/Ø
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 10 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.348.11nar
References (73)
References
Secondary sources
Abraham, Werner. 1997. Kausativierung und Dekausativierung: Zu Fragen der verbparadigmatischen Markierung in der Germania. In Thomas Birkman, Heinz Klingenberg, Damaris Nübling & Elke Ronnenberger-Sibold (eds.), Vergleichende germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik: Festschrift für Otmar Werner, 13–28. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery D. 2007. The major functions of the noun phrase. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. I: Clause structure, 132–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1989 [1972]. Historical and comparative linguistics. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred. 1965. Deverbative jan-Verba des Altenglischen. Munich: Mikrokopie.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1978. Passive and transitivity again. Forum Linguisticum 3. 25–28.Google Scholar
Bosworth, Joseph & T. Northcote Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, William B. 1970. Extent of verbal influence and choice between le and lo in Alphonsine prose. Hispanic Review 38. 133–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 2003. (In)transitivity and object marking: Some current issues. In Giuliana Fiorentino (ed.), Romance Objects, 49–104. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2015. Semantic and (morpho)syntactic constraints on anticausativization: Evidence from Latin and Old-Norse-Icelandic. Linguistics 53: 4. 677–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2006. Transitivity pairs, markedness and diachronic stability. Linguistics 44:2. 303–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and clausal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De la Cruz, Juan M. 1975. Old English pure prefixes: Structure and function. Linguistics 145. 47–81.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2000. A typology of causatives: Form, syntax and meaning. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), 2000. Changing valency, 30–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallut. 1995. Verbal syntax in the early Germanic languages. PhD Dissertation. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles. 1958. Review of Fleisch, L’arabe classique. Language 34. 314–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García García, Luisa. 2005. Germanische Kausativbildung. Die deverbalen jan- Verben im Gotischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
. 2012. Morphological causatives in Old English: The quest for a vanishing formation. Transactions of the Philological Society 110:1. 122–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of Linguistics 1:1. 106–143.Google Scholar
Hamel, A. G. van 1931. Gotisch handbook. Haarlem: Tjeenk-Willink.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds), Causatives and transitivity, 87–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15:3. 535–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Transitive prominence. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages: Introducing the framework and case studies from Africa and Eurasia, 131–147. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Andrea D. Sims. 2010. Understanding morphology. 2nd ed. (Understanding Language Series). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Healey, Antonette diPaolo (ed.). 2008. The dictionary of Old English in electronic form A-G. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Healey, Antonette diPaolo, John Price Wilkin & Xi Xiang (eds.). 2009. The dictionary of Old English web corpus. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Hermodsson, Lars. 1952. Reflexive und intransitive Verba im älteren Westgermanischen. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1983. The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1994. Phonogenesis. In William Pagliuca (ed.). Perspectives on grammaticalization, (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 109), 29–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1982. Introduction. In Paul J. Hopper & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity, 1–5. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Los Bettelou. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. In Geert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle, (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 79–117. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Krahe, Hans and Wolfgang Meid. 1967. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft: Wortbildungslehre. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2001. The Vedic –ya presents. PhD Dissertation. University of Leiden.Google Scholar
. 2009. Valency-changing categories in Indo-Aryan and Indoeuropean: A diachronic typological portrait of Vedic Sanskrit. In Anju Saxena & Åke Viberg (eds.), Multilingualism: Proceedings of the 23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 75–92. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. Chicago Linguistic Society 13. 236-287.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2002. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 36. 140–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, Richard J. W. 1970. Old English preverbal ge-: Its meaning. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2015. Valency classes and alternations: Parameters of variation. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages: Introducing the framework and case studies from Africa and Eurasia, 73–130. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages: Introducing the framework and case studies from Africa and Eurasia. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Martín Arista, Javier. 2012. The Old English prefix ge-: A panchronic reappraisal. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32:4. 411–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2015. Preverbal ge- in Old and Middle English. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 58. 15–48.Google Scholar
Narogg, Heiko. 2009. Synchrony and diachrony in transitivity pairs. Paper delivered at ALT 8, Berkeley, July.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, David Peterson & Jonathan Barnes. 2004. Transitivising and detransitivising languages. Linguistic Typology 8:2. 149–211.Google Scholar
Ottósson, Kjartan. 2013. The anticausative and related categories in the Old Germanic languages. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Diachronic and typological perspectives on verbs, 329–382. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (25 July, 2018)
Plank, Frans & Adit Lahiri. 2009. Microscopic and macroscopic typology: Basic valence orientation. A paper delivered at ALT 8, Berkeley, July.Google Scholar
Poppe, Erich. 2009. Standard Average European and the Celticity of English intensifiers and reflexives: Some considerations and implications. English Language and Linguistics 13:2. 251–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A Comparative Germanic grammar. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph & Charles Leslie Wrenn. 1957. An Old English grammar, 2nd edn. London: Methuen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Donald A. 2006. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz Narbona, Esaúl. 2012. The degree of lexicalisation of present day English morphological causatives. MA Dissertation. Universidad de Sevilla.Google Scholar
2014. Lexicalisation in present-day English morphological causatives: Its degree and syntactic-semantic effects. In Alejandra Moreno Álvarez & Irene Pérez Fernández (eds.), New alleyways to significance: Interdisciplinary approaches to English studies, 291–310. Palma: Edicions UIB.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1991. Aspektstheorie. In Hans-Jürgen Sasse (ed.), Aspektsysteme, 1–33. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Seebold, Elmar. 1970. Vergleichendes und etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen starken Verben. Den Haag: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1891. Perfective und imperfective actionsart im Germanischen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 15. 70–177.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Seiichi. 1989. The morphosyntax of detransitive suffixes –þ- and –n- in Gothic: A synchronic and diachronic study. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1953. Equisse d’une syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klinksieck.Google Scholar
. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klinksieck.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1985. Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21. 385–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valin, Robert D. van. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantic interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederik. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Klein, Thomas
2022. Does preverbal Old English ge- have semantic or aspectual force?: evidence from the Dictionary of Old English. Studia Neophilologica 94:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Klein, Thomas
2024. Scribal interpretation of problematic passages in Old English poetry: Insights from theories of textual difficulty. Studia Neophilologica ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.