Chapter 13
On the development of OE swā to ModE so and related changes in an atypical group of demonstratives
Building on previous comparative studies and comparative reconstructions (König 2012, 2015), we trace the syntactic and semantic development of OE swā, of its adverbial counterpart swylc and of þus to Modern English so, such and thus on the basis of relevant text corpora for OE and ME. In contrast to previous studies of swā in OE (cf. Schleburg 2002) and of so in ME (Nummenmaa 1973), it is shown that swā, swelc, thus and their counterparts in ModE are not isolated particles or adverbs, but are more adequately analysed as demonstratives of manner, quality and degree. Starting from a basic exophoric (gestural) use and its typical extensions to anaphoric and cataphoric uses, these expressions develop into a wide variety of grammatical markers in ModE.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Data and methodology
- 3.Demonstratives of manner, quality and degree in Old English
- 4.OE swā as a source of grammaticalisation: Some frequent patterns
- 5.From exophoric to anaphoric
- 5.1VP-anaphora do so
- 5.2So as a propositional anaphor
- 5.3So as a sentence connective
- 6.From exophoric to cataphoric
- 6.1Comparative constructions
- 6.2The quotative use of swā
- 7.The development of thus and such
- 7.1Þus > thus
- 7.2Swylc/swelc > such
- 8.Summary and conclusion
- Author queries
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (58)
References
Aarts, Bas & April McMahon (eds.). 2006. The handbook of English linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Arbib, Michael A. 2012. How the brain got language: The mirror system hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blakemore, Diane L. 1988. So as a constraint on relevance. In Ruth M. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, 183–195. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bolden, Galina B. 2008. So what’s up? Using the discourse marker so to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(3). 302–337.
Bolden, Galina B. 2009. Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41(5). 974–998.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.
Boulonnais, Dominique. 2006. So et les phenomènes d’expansion contextuelle. In Geneviève Girard-Gillet (ed.), Aux marges du texte: Texte et co-texte. Etudes réunies par Geneviève Girard (C.I.E.R.E.C. Travaux 128), 49–69. Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Etienne.
Brugmann, Karl. 1904. Die Demonstrativpronomina der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Teubner.
CMEPV = The Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse. The Humanities Text Initiative, University of Michigan. [URL]
Collins Cobuild Advanced Dictionary. 2009. Boston: Heinle.
Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 463–489.
Diessel, Holger. 2013. Where does language come from? Some reflections on the role of deictic gesture and demonstratives in the evolution of language. Cognitive Linguistics 5(2–3). 239–249.
DOE = Cameron, Angus, Ashley Crandell Amos & Antonette diPaolo Healey. 2007. The Dictionary of Old English: A to G online. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project.
DOEC = Healey, Antonette diPaolo, John Price Wilkin & Xin Xiang. 2009. The Dictionary of Old English Corpus on the World Wide Web. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project.
Ericson, Eston Everett. 1932. The use of ‘swa’ in Old English. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Fettig, Adolf. 1935. Die Gradadverbien im Mittelenglischen (Anglistische Forschungen 79). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Greet, William C. (ed.). 1927. The Reule of Crysten Religioun (Early English Text Society 5). London: A. Moring.
Haspelmath, Martin & Oda Buchholz. 1998. Equative and simulative constructions in the languages of Europe. In Johan van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 277–334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin & the Leipzig Equative Constructions Team. 2017. Equative constructions in world-wide perspective. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 9–32. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
HC = Helsinki Corpus TEI XML Edition. 2011. 1st edn. Designed by Alpo Honkapohja, Samuli Kaislaniemi, Henri Kauhanen, Matti Kilpiö, Ville Marttila, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Matti Rissanen & Jukka Tyrkkö. Implemented by Henri Kauhanen & Ville Marttila. Based on The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1991). Helsinki: The Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), University of Helsinki.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2007. The genesis of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, Bernd & Kyung-An Song. 2011. On the grammaticalization of personal pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 47(3). 587–630.
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, Samuel. 1799/1913. A dictionary of the English Language. A digital edition of the 1799 classic. [URL]
Johnson, Alison. 2002. So…? Pragmatic implications of so-prefaced questions in formal police interviews. In Janet Cotterill (ed.), Language in the legal process, 91–110. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
König, Ekkehard. 1988. Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In John A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 145–166. London: Blackwell.
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.
König, Ekkehard. 2012. Le rôle des déictiques de la manière dans le cadre d’une typologie de la deixis. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 107(1). 11–42.
König, Ekkehard. 2017. The deictic identification of similarity. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective, 143–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
König, Ekkehard & Yoko Nishina. 2015. Deixis der Art und Weise, der Qualität und des Grades im Deutschen und Japanischen: Eine kontrastiv vergleichende Analyse. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderhefte 20. 7–32.
König, Ekkehard & Carla Umbach. 2018. Demonstratives of manner, of quality and of degree. In Marco Coniglio, Andrew Murphy, Eva Schlachter & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Atypical demonstratives: Syntax, semantics and typology, 285–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lehmann, Christian. 2017. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press.
McSparran, Frances, Paul Schaffner, John Latta, Alan Pagliere, Christina Powell & Matt Stoeffler. 2000–2018. Online edition in Middle English Compendium. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library. [URL]
MED = Hans Kurath, Sherman Kuhn & Robert E. Lewis. 1952–2001. Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
MEG-C = Stenroos, Merja Riitta, Martti Mäkinen, Simon Horobin & Jeremy Smith. 2011. The Middle English Grammar Corpus, version 2011.1. University of Stavanger. [URL]
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.
Nummenmaa, Lusa. 1973. The uses of so, al so and as in Early Middle English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.
Oizumi, Akio (ed.). 1991–2012. A complete concordance to the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, volumes 1–16. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.
Peltola, Niilo. 1959. On the ‘identifying’ swa (swa) phrase in Old English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 60. 156–173.
PPCME2 = Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. [URL]
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2004. Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(2). 185–218.
Schleburg, Florian. 2002. Altenglisch ‚swa‘. Syntax und Semantik einer polyfunktionalen Partikel. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The progressive in 19th-century English: A process of integration. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Chris L. Roberts. 2005. So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech 80(3). 280–300.
Umbach, Carla & Helmar Gust. 2014. Similarity demonstratives. Lingua 149. 74–93.
van der Auwera, Johan & Evie Coussé. 2016. Such and sådan – the same but different. Nordic Journal of English Studies 15. 15–32.
van der Auwera, Johan & Kalyanamalini Sahoo. 2016. On comparative concepts and descriptive categories such as they are. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 47. 136–173.
van der Auwera, Johan & Kalyanamalini Sahoo. 2020. Such similatives: A cross-linguistic reconnaissance. Language Sciences 81. 101217.
Webster’s New World College Dictionary. 2014. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
YCOE = Taylor, Ann, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Frank Beths. 2003. The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE). Department of Linguistics, University of York. [URL]
York Poetry Corpus = Pintzuk, Susan & Leendert Plug. 2002. The York-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Poetry. Department of Linguistics, University of York. [URL]
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Wolde, Elnora ten & Thomas Schwaiger
2022.
Modification as a linguistic ‘relationship’: Ajust soproblem in Functional Discourse Grammar.
Open Linguistics 8:1
► pp. 699 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.