Cover not available
Part of
Motion and Space across Languages: Theory and applications
Edited by Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano
[Human Cognitive Processing 59] 2017
► pp. 177–204

Chapter 6
The early life of borrowed path verbs in English

| Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU)
In the Middle English period, a number of pure path verbs (e.g. enter, issue, descend, ascend) were borrowed from French and Latin into English. An analysis of the Old and Middle English motion verb inventory reveals that before this, pure path verbs hardly existed; an analysis of c. 1,000 Old and Middle English motion descriptions shows that path information is typically expressed outside the verb. The borrowed path verbs are therefore a new pattern in the Middle English system of talking about motion. By comparing their use in autonomous Middle English texts and in texts translated from French or Latin, I show that in autonomous texts, they are more restricted to non-literal motion (such as ‘descend from one’s ancestors’) and to specific types of literal motion, while in the translations, they are more freely used for general literal motion.
Keywords: borrowing, Middle English, Old English, translation
Article outline
  • 1.The mixed vocabulary
  • 2.Talking about motion in Old and Middle English
    • 2.1Old and Middle English motion verb inventory
      • 2.1.1Method
      • 2.1.2Results and discussion
    • 2.2Old and Middle English motion verb usage
      • 2.2.1Method
      • 2.2.2Results and discussion: Type of verb
      • 2.2.3Results and discussion: Path expression
      • 2.2.4Conclusion
  • 3.The early life of borrowed path verbs in English
    • 3.1Method
    • 3.2Results
      • 3.2.1 ME entren
      • 3.2.2 ME ishen/issuen
      • 3.2.3 ME descenden
      • 3.2.4 ME ascenden
    • 3.3Discussion
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.59.08hub
References (38)
Sources
AND = Rothwell, W., Stone, L. W., & Reid, T. B. W. (Eds.). 1977–1992. Anglo-Norman dictionary. London: Modern Humanities Research Association. [URL].
Benson, L. D., & Robinson, F. N. (Eds.). 1988. The Riverside Chaucer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
BT = Bosworth, J., & Toller, T. N. (Eds.). 1882–1898. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon; Toller, T. N. (Ed.). 1908–1921. Supplement to An Anglo-Saxon dictionary based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Oxford: Clarendon; Campbell, A. (Ed.). 1972. Enlarged addenda and corrigenda to the supplement. Oxford: Clarendon. [URL].
CME = Corpus of Middle English prose and verse. 2006–. Middle English Compendium, University of Michigan. [URL].
DOE = Cameron, A., Crandell Amos, A., diPaolo Healey, A. et al. (Eds.). 1986–. Dictionary of Old English. Toronto: University of Toronto. [URL] (Dictionary of Old English: A – H online. 2016).
DMF = Martin, R. et al. (Eds.). 2012. Dictionnaire du moyen français (1330–1500). Université de Nancy 2. Version 5. [URL].
DMLBS = Latham, R. E. et al. (Eds.). 1997–2013. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British sources. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DOEC = diPaolo Healey, A. et al. (Comp.). 2009. Dictionary of Old English web corpus. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project.Google Scholar
Fischer, B., & Weber, R. (Eds.). 1997. Biblia sacra: Iuxta vulgatam versionem: Ed. quartam emendatam. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.Google Scholar
HC = Rissanen, M. et al. (Comp.). 1991. The Helsinki corpus of English texts. 1991. Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. [URL].
MED = Kurath, H., Kuhn, S. M., Reidy, J., & Lewis, R. E. (Eds.). 1952–2001. Middle English dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. [URL].
PPCME2 = Kroch, A., & Taylor, A. (Comp.). 2000. Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English. [URL].
OED = The Oxford English dictionary. 3rd ed. online. 2000–. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL].
TOE = Roberts, J., & Kay, C. 2000. A thesaurus of Old English. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. [URL].
References
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W. 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 331–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L., & Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2012. English is less rich in manner-of-motion verbs when translated from French. Across Languages and Cultures, 13(2), 173–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, H. 1996. The Canterbury tales, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2005. The stories of English. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Durkin, P. 2014. Borrowed words. A history of loanwords in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanego, T. 2012. Motion events in English: The emergence and diachrony of manner salience from Old English to Late Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica, 33, 29–85.Google Scholar
Haselow, A. 2012. Lexical typology and typological changes in the English lexicon. In T. Nevalainen, & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (643–653). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, J. 2012. “No man entreth in or out”: How are typologically unsuitable loanverbs integrated into English? In I. Hegedüs, & A. Fodor (Eds.), English historical linguistics 2010. Selected papers from the sixteenth international conference on English historical linguistics (ICEHL 16), Pécs, 23–27 August 2010 (327–346). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
In press. Motion and the English verb. A diachronic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W. 1994. Schriftlichkeit und Sprache. In H. Günther, & O. Ludwig (Eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit / Writing and its use – Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung / An interdisciplinary handbook of international research (587–604). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. 1995. An invitation to Old English and Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, B. 2003. Motion events and the lexicon: A case study of Hindi. Lingua, 113(2), 123–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogura, M. 2002. Verbs of motion in Medieval English. Cambridge: Brewer.Google Scholar
Roberts, J., & Kay, C. 2000. A thesaurus of Old English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Scheler, M. 1977. Der englische Wortschatz. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1997. Mind, code, and text. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type. Dedicated to T. Givón (437–467). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2013. Variation and change in English path verbs and constructions: Usage patterns and conceptual structure. In J. Goschler, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events (223–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2012. Linguistic levels: Semantics and lexicon. In A. Bergs, & L. J. Brinton (Eds.), English historical linguistics. An international handbook (164–177). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. 2006. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar